The David Knight Show - Thu Episode #2103: Trump’s Ukraine Flip & NATO’s Drone Panic: Sleepwalking Into World War III

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 25, 2025 - The David Knight Show

03:01:18

Thu Episode #2103: Trump’s Ukraine Flip & NATO’s Drone Panic: Sleepwalking Into World War III

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In a world of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	It's the David Knight Show.
	As the clock strikes 13, it's Thursday, the 25th of September, year of our Lord 2025.
	Well, it didn't take long after Trump did a 180 on the war with Ukraine for them to come up with some false flag justification.
	We have some drones that again flew over Denmark airports, this time over four of them.
	Is this going to be the thing that drags us into World War III?
	Of course, it was the assassination of an archduke that got us into World War I, which I'm still scratching my head about.
	This is another one of those issues.
	And it's also time for revenge.
	Trump is coming after Comey.
	And his cult applauds.
	Why didn't he ever go after James Clapper?
	That's a question to ask.
	We're going to talk about those when we come back.
	As well as look at the reactions to Kimmel and what Charlie Kirk had to say about education.
	Seems like we're on the same page when it comes to education.
	Alex Newman had an article about his interview with Charlie Kirk.
	We'll be right back.
	stay with us.
	Well, as they say, revenge is best served cold in In this particular case, it comes with the side of hot lies as well.
	This is the war that they're trying to get us into.
	I guess you could say revenge.
	And what we're talking about with James Comey, it's nothing other than personal revenge, I believe, because the attorney sycophant Pam Bondi does whatever Trump says, and they never came after James Clapper.
	Remember James Clapper?
	When he was asked point blank by Ron Wyden, only time I've ever agreed with Ron Wyden, he said, are you spying on the American people without a search warrant?
	Senter, not intentionally.
	It was an accident that he spied on us, right?
	We just accidentally built this giant data center to catalog everything you do.
	And he was obviously lying.
	He had Michael Hayden later in a lecture at Washington Lee University said, I blame Ron Wyden for that.
	He knew perfectly well, and so did all of his staff, what we were doing.
	And he exposed it.
	It's your problem if you expose the lies, right?
	But he went for five years, folks, without ever being charged with lying to Congress.
	He didn't just lie to Congress.
	He lied to the American people.
	And he lied to the American people about violating the requirements of the Constitution for a search warrant.
	That was significant.
	And to boot, this is James Comey, who was also part of the cabal that ran the Russia Gate fakery that was out there.
	It's really amazing that nobody ever brought this up.
	Nobody in the Senate, nobody in Trump's Department of Justice ever came after James Comey, James Clapper, but they're coming after James Comey now.
	And again, it is not about restoring the rule of law.
	If it was about restoring the rule of law, they would have come after James Clapper.
	But they didn't.
	This is simply about revenge.
	Very dangerous what Denmark is doing, saying that they're going to try to invoke Article 4, which would drag everybody into a war with Russia.
	You know, Trump, his supporters are saying, well, this is just a bluff that he's doing in order to get Russia to come to the table.
	I said it's a really foolish and stupid bluff.
	And now I think the NATO warmongers are calling Trump's bluff.
	We'll see what happens.
	Meanwhile, we had a Dallas ICE shooter named Joshua John.
	No information about this guy yet.
	And the only thing that we know is that he supposedly was attacking the police and attacking ICE because they conveniently found, again, a signed bullet casing.
	All these people scratching their name in the bullet casing.
	Isn't this interesting?
	This is kind of like the passport that drifted down on 9-11 that did not burn or get destroyed.
	I just don't know.
	Even the message on it really didn't make any sense.
	It said anti-ICE, even though he shot up detainees and no ICE agents or police officers were hit.
	Perhaps it's because we don't have the details yet.
	They say that he fired into a van.
	But so maybe that was it.
	Maybe he's just blindly shooting into the van thinking that he's going to get the ICE people that he supposedly is against.
	I don't know.
	There's no concern from the press or the police about the people that were killed because, you know, hey, they're just illegal immigrants.
	But it's all, you better not come after the police.
	Well, evidently he didn't.
	You know, I just don't understand this yet, but we'll see what happens.
	It certainly does look like they're using it already for their agenda, and that bullet looks a bit fishy to me.
	But he killed several people, at least one died, and then when they got up there, he was dead already.
	So yet another one of these cases, almost like an MK Ultra type of thing, isn't it?
	Although he appeared to target migrants in ICE custody, Attorney General Kim Paxton said the shooting represented attack on ICE and law enforcement.
	See, that's just it.
	The other people are not people.
	There was like 20 shots in a row, they said.
	So maybe he just rapidly and randomly fired into the van.
	Maybe that's what happened.
	Vance said the obsessive attack on law enforcement, particularly ICE, must stop.
	I'm praying for everyone hurt in this attack and for their families.
	Again, the narrative immediately is this is ice, ice, ice.
	Police, police, police.
	And we don't know too much about this guy.
	They're going to jump into this thing.
	That's what they want it to be.
	So that's what they're going to make it.
	Will Trump do gun control again?
	I mean, I can see when you got people from the Texas Attorney General to Ted Cruz to the vice president jumping in saying, this has got to stop.
	There's too much of this.
	It's got to stop.
	What's Trump going to do to stop it?
	Remember when he did gun control by executive order with a bump stock that was in reaction to one of the most obviously fake shootings in terms of not saying that nobody died.
	I'm saying the narrative that they came up with was one of the most obviously fake.
	And one of the most fake aspects of that narrative was the bump stock, which is what Trump focused on to set a precedent of gun control by executive order.
	So what will he do with this?
	Why are they doing this type of thing?
	Meanwhile, the U.S. Park Police removed a statue that was put up.
	It was taken down the day after it was put up.
	It was supposed to be there for four days.
	I had a permit to have it up for four days.
	And it was a statue, see if you can put it, there you go.
	Yeah, let's see the statue there.
	Do I have a picture of it?
	Yeah, that's it.
	Trump and Epstein, the best friends forever, together again.
	Protest artwork has been removed by the park police.
	A lot of people showed up to see it the next day because there's a lot of people in Washington, D.C. that don't like Trump.
	He's very unpopular there.
	They posted a video, one person posted a video of a uniformed officer supervising a team of maintenance workers, loading it onto a flatbed truck before sunrise.
	After the sun rose, the only thing left was an outline in the sand revealing where it had been.
	Dozens of people came down to see the statue on Wednesday morning, disappointed to see that it was already gone.
	It was supposed to be up that permit to have it there through the weekend.
	They went through, got permission.
	And by the way, the First Amendment, which Trump despises so much, says we have a right to protest, and that especially includes satire.
	That's the thing that evidently he hates the most.
	And it's one, just a reminder, Saul Winsky's Rules for Radicals said satire is the most effective weapon because there's no answer to it.
	What do you do to answer to this?
	This is showing Trump and Epstein together.
	Somebody who has served this country for 17 years to ensure the freedom of speech for our fellow countrymen is beyond reprehensible to me, said Navy veteran Christopher Hooper.
	He said it comes down to freedom of speech and that includes art.
	So the fact that it's gone, we're no longer in the threat of an authoritarian government.
	We are in an authoritarian government.
	More and more of our rights are being eliminated.
	You can't protest now.
	And that is, like I said, especially satire.
	The statue had a plaque that said, in honor of friendship month, we celebrate the long-standing bond between Trump and his closest friend, Jeffrey Epstein.
	Beneath the inscription was a carving of two hands held together to form a heart and a reference to Trump's message to Epstein in the birthday book.
	Voiceover, there must be more to life than having everything.
	So I said, the Epstein case, said one person, reminds me of Watergate and the missing 18 minutes of tape.
	The truth will always bubble up slowly, but eventually.
	So the more he panics about it, and the more you realize that there is something there.
	Something there about Trump or something there.
	Certainly, I think about Trump, but especially there about the controllers of Trump.
	So when Trump is called, the Epstein files of Democratic hoax, of course.
	But this actually was a hoax, a satire.
	And he doesn't like that either.
	Meanwhile, Jim Jordan, who hyped the YouTube amnesty that we talked about yesterday, Chris Minahan said, actually, the fine print tells a different story.
	He appears to have simply been lying.
	No, not at Washington, would it?
	Breaking.
	Due to our oversight efforts, Google commits to offer all creators previously kicked off of YouTube due to political speech violations to return to the platform, said Jim Jordan.
	However, if you look at the text of the document written by Google's lawyers, it only says that they will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies.
	They're no longer in effect.
	I don't know.
	I was never given a reason.
	So, I mean, that could be there.
	I continually violated their policies not to talk about COVID-19, and I did my best to violate all the policies from Trump and his big pharmaceutical shell running HHS at the time, coming up with these nonsense mask issues.
	I violated it every way that I could think of.
	But anyway, we'll have to do this anyway.
	I'll have to try it.
	It'd be a good report to find out why they're doing about this.
	I have to try that over the weekend, I guess.
	Yeah, it'd be interesting to see.
	Chris Minahan at Information Liberation thinks, well, that means then that if they just banned you for general political purposes, he mentions Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones.
	He said they're going to remain banned.
	Who knows?
	I don't know.
	Just as the Israeli lobby wants.
	Well, I don't think Alex Jones is anti-Israel, do you?
	Nick Fuentes is, but I don't think Alex is.
	Maybe he says that, but he also is all over the place with everything.
	I'm sure he's mentioned AIPAC once or twice.
	Yeah.
	We've had a lot of questions about a pathway back to YouTube for some Terminated creators to set up a new channel, YouTube's press account said.
	This will be a limited pilot project available to a subset of creators.
	In addition to those channels terminated for policies that have been deprecated.
	More to come soon.
	So again, it's looking more and more doubtful that they will allow this.
	Not that it breaks my heart.
	In other words, the GOP secured amnesty for quote-unquote all creators, banned for their political views.
	It's actually just a limited pilot project for a subset of creators.
	YouTube was not having their arm twisted too much because they really wanted to do this as well.
	They were doing what they wanted to do.
	Their fallback position is, well, we had our arm twisted by the federal government.
	And the federal government says, well, we're not censoring anybody.
	YouTube is doing it.
	All of this is just so disingenuous and fake.
	We know exactly what they're doing and why.
	Yeah, the former YouTube CEO, Susan Wojiki, was extremely left-leaning, extremely left-leaning.
	She was banning people because she wanted to.
	Not that she was sitting there with the ban button herself, but implementing those policies was something she was just giddy to engage in, I'm sure.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there are recordings of her talking at YouTube events to YouTube creators that she likes talking about how she's going to boost their channels or correspondingly that's going to limit the reach of other channels.
	It was never a fair playing view.
	Do you remember the Democrat Convention back in 2020?
	They had Sink Uger, or I call him Stink Uger, and the Young Turds.
	They were their on-site live broadcasting.
	YouTube paid him to go to both Republican and the Democrat national conventions and to broadcast live from there.
	That should tell you something about what their politics are.
	It also points out Chris Minahan, the most that they would do would be to let you start a new channel.
	They would not give you your old channel back with all the videos that were there and the viewers and subscribers.
	Lest anyone forget, the GOP last year worked together with Democrats and the Biden administration to ban TikTok on behalf of the Israel lobby.
	That's why Chris Minahan is saying that.
	And of course now TikTok is you have Larry Ellison is going to have a huge role in TikTok as well.
	There was an interesting article on the Drudge Report about how much media is coming under the control of Larry Ellison.
	He's got major studios and major news organizations.
	We've never seen consolidation like this before.
	I remember about 12 years ago, we were talking about how we're going to wind up with just maybe a half dozen media companies.
	No, it's going to be far less than that.
	Because all of the entertainment media, as well as broadcast news, the rest of the stuff is all being folded under just a couple of oligarchs that are there.
	And of course, Ellison is heavily preferred by Trump.
	He's not taken a public position and drawn attention to himself like Elon Musk.
	Elon Musk made the Steve Bannon mistake of making it about him instead of making it about Trump.
	Ellison has been a little bit more clever, stayed in the background for this.
	Meanwhile, we have Trump's homosexual cabinet secretary for the Treasury coming after Lala Harris because she snubbed Pete Boudi Gay, didn't select him for her running mate because of his sexuality.
	He called it proof of how low regard she holds the American people.
	Yeah, the American people or the DEI stuff.
	Not so with Trump.
	You know, Trump is more than happy to cater to the DEI crowd, especially the LGBT people.
	They have had multiple festivities and events at Mar-a-Lago.
	They've given Melania multiple awards.
	And in 2020, you had the Trump people selling rainbow merchandise.
	I don't know if they did it in 2024 or not, trying to reinvent themselves.
	Trump, of course, was not just wanting to put trainees in women's sports.
	He wanted to put trainees in women's beauty contests that he owned.
	You know, that might be one place where they might not be able to successfully compete.
	It's in the eye of the older, I guess.
	I don't know.
	She discloses in her book, she calls 107 Days.
	I think she should spell that D-A-Z-E, la-la.
	Anyway, she discloses that Boudigay was her first choice, writing that he would have been an ideal partner if he wasn't homosexual.
	But if he was a straight white man, she said.
	But it was too big of a risk, so she got Tim Waltz.
	Maria Bardaromo rolled back a clip of Harris doubling down in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and she pressed Besant on the vice president's admission.
	And he said, first, it shows her emphasis on identity politics, really.
	And the American people moved on to, it shows how low a regard she holds for the American people.
	She was just a terrible candidate, said Besant, because she didn't double down on the DEI stuff.
	Well, Trump has been very happy to do that and to use not only Besant, but to use Rick Durnell to virtue signal to the LGBT at the same time that he goes to all these events for the Christian nationalists.
	He's all things to all people, and he's able to get away with this double think and double speak.
	Musk, meanwhile, has put up a giant power center, the first two gigawatt AI data center.
	He's doing it in Memphis.
	He's got a large battery backup that'll back the whole thing up for like four hours.
	So he may wind up burning Memphis down like Sherman burned down Atlanta, but for different reasons.
	You see, if he really wanted to do it the right way, he should have bought the Bass Pro Shop Pyramid and put it underneath there.
	So, you know, a thousand years when people rediscover it, they'd be like, what was this?
	Yeah, Tricks destroyed everything.
	So this is his system that he calls Colossus because, again, nothing to be concerned about.
	He just named it after a science fiction movie where the AI tries to take over the world, the Fordman Project.
	But he's got 350 gas turbines.
	Isn't it interesting?
	You know, this is a guy who made, became the world's richest man, made his fortune doing green gaslighting.
	We're all going to die if you don't buy my electric cars and on and on, right?
	And yet, he's got a two-gigawatt gas turbine power system.
	So he's going to use gas there.
	And of course, he's shooting off rockets left and right.
	It only matters when the little guy does it, right?
	He can do one launch and use more than probably we do and everybody in the audience uses in their entire life combined.
	And that's not a problem.
	It's just you can't have any energy.
	You can't own anything.
	You can't have any privacy.
	So he's greenwashed his way to becoming the world's richest man.
	And this is so large, just to give you an idea, it could power 50% of the city of Memphis.
	So that's the power that he's giving to himself personally.
	At least I don't think that he's having the local utilities pay for it.
	He's taking it off-grid.
	So that's one thing, at least.
	Hopefully, I don't know.
	And then that brings us to tariffs.
	Tariffs are torching the U.S. container imports, says an analyst at Freight Waves.
	China tariffs are driving sharp decline in inbound trade.
	And we're seeing a tremendous plunge, which has only happened two times in the past 60 years.
	One time was during the Great Recession, the pump and dump housing crisis.
	The second time was during Trump's lockdown five years ago.
	He appears to be the guy that they go to to create chaos and to lock down our infrastructure.
	Inbound volume through the top 10 U.S. ports in August finished 0.1% ahead of the same month in 2024.
	But that happened primarily because the first week or so of August, people had rushed and accelerated their shipments before the August 7th deadline of the renewal of the reciprocal tariffs.
	They wanted to get these goods in before that came up.
	And it was also happening in July.
	July's volume was 3.2% ahead, trying to get the shipments in earlier.
	Now what is happening is Trump in August announced yet another 90-day pause, another taco, Trump always chickening out, and the chaotic China trade war.
	And as I said before, I don't think taxes of any sort are good.
	I think these things are done in an arbitrary, capricious way.
	Though the worst thing about it is the arbitrary and capricious way where they're on, they're off, the rates change constantly.
	He can't make up his mind because there is no plan.
	He's simply reacting to things.
	One day he's angry with the leader of a particular country and he jacks the prices, the tariffs up by another additional 50% or something.
	It's insane.
	And it's that kind of temperamental chaos that is causing so much destruction, even more destructive than the taxes themselves.
	Front loading by anxious shippers during the previous tariff break soaked up most eastbound volume moving in the peak season, while economic uncertainty and tariff-stoked inflation has undercut demand as shown by weaker container rates on the eastbound Trans-Pacific.
	Without a spike from front loading, the U.S. would have seen a drop in year-to-year volume in July, at least as high as the Far East's positive number.
	So China is shifting to other people.
	The U.S. is a less relevant player in world trade today than it was prior to these various tariff initiatives and will become more so as announced plans are implemented, said the person who has an organization that tracks us.
	His name is McCowan.
	A revised forecast by the National Retail Federation shows import volumes falling 3.4% for the year.
	That translates in the remaining four months of 2025 being down by 15.7% compared to the same four months in 2024.
	So they're looking for it to really crash in the last four months.
	And this is the build-up to Christmas.
	What does that tell us about the economy?
	And what's it tell us about supply and prices?
	What's going to happen to them?
	If and when those tariffs are implemented, because nobody knows what he's going to do.
	This is why it is so devastating, especially to small businesses.
	They don't have the capital to be able to weather this kind of engineered chaos by Trump yet again.
	But of course, as Trump said in 2020, the small businesses are not essential.
	You shut down.
	Walmart's going to stay open, but you shut down.
	That infuriates me.
	As I said, I had a personal experience of that after a storm with our businesses.
	And I can't explain how mad that may be.
	A year-to-year decline in inbound volume is a rarity in the more than six decades of container shipment, as I said before.
	This is McCowan, matched only by drops during the 2009 financial crisis and the pandemic.
	Both of these things engineered and unnecessary.
	Trump is a one-man dictator, a one-man wrecking crew, whether you're talking about his lockdowns of 2020 or his tariffs of 2025.
	And he's also going to expand the tariff powers.
	He wants a, it's not enough that Trump can just sit there with his pen and a whim and add them here and there.
	Now he wants to encourage American producers to add products and things to the list.
	This is coming from the Commerce Secretary.
	The Trump administration wants to expand U.S. tariff authority, proposing new rules on imported auto parts and metals and implementing a fresh tariff framework with Japan.
	You see, this will never end.
	This has been going on now for what, nine months?
	And they're still messing with it.
	They're still shifting things around.
	And nobody can plan anything.
	Chaos that will kill the economy, especially the small, non-essential businesses, according to Trump.
	But I think when you look at this and the attack on cars, this is Trump's contribution to making sure that we have no cars whatsoever.
	Make it impossible.
	You know, regulation, expenses, tariffs, taxes, all this.
	The Department of Commerce, maybe they should call it the Department of No Commerce.
	This is from Lutnick, who wants to crash the economy as part of the great reset pump and dump and then have everybody buy stable coins.
	Then he wants to be able to grab all the natural resources.
	I think this is what's going on with the technocrats in the Trump administration.
	Anyway, the Department of No Commerce released an interim final rule creating a new inclusion process for the imports of cars and auto parts under Section 232.
	The rule would let U.S. producers petition for additional imported components to face the existing 25% tariffs.
	The Department of No Commerce is also accepting inclusion requests for steel and aluminum downstream products through September 29.
	After each window closes, the Department of No Commerce will accept public comments for two weeks.
	See, this is how things are done in post-constitutional America.
	We don't follow laws anymore.
	We certainly don't follow the Constitution, and we have no debate.
	You know, it used to be that you would have a debate, your elected representatives would pass a law after that public debate.
	But now you have edicts from the bureaucracy, like the Department of No Commerce.
	And they will come up with rules rather than laws.
	And then that will be followed by a short period of comments, which they are free to completely ignore.
	You know, if you want to talk about America first, you need to bring back the American Constitution first.
	What did you say, Lance?
	And this is the process of corporations cutting off the ladder below them so that they can't have competition.
	This is that made automated.
	Here's a government system so that you can do that by yourselves.
	You don't need to lobby and bribe people anymore.
	You can do it directly.
	You can just work directly with a bureaucracy and you don't have to.
	It's surprising that the politicians are letting themselves be cut out of this lucrative loop that they've created.
	Yeah, I mean, this way, if they've got some manufacturing process for something that they've developed in-house so that only they can produce this, then they can get tariffs put on it for manufacturers for everyone else that uses that product made in China.
	Yeah, we've always seen, you know, when you look at local businesses, the easiest way to see this is a restaurant business, right?
	They will go to the local people or the state government and they say, you know, we need to have these extreme rules, and it's just there to keep people from opening up a new restaurant.
	People who are already open are not affected by this.
	And that's the way they keep their competition out.
	A coalition of more than 40 business associations, not 40 businesses, but business associations, have raised concern about the expanded inclusion process.
	They said the sudden expansion of tariffs with limited industry consultation increases cost by generating significant compliance burdens for businesses of all size, including those that do not purchase or produce steel and aluminum products.
	They pointed out that manufacturers account for more than half of all U.S. imports.
	Think about that.
	You know, you're going to, this is going to really harm American manufacturing because in so many cases, you can't find somebody that makes the components that you need if you want to make something in the USA.
	One of you guys was talking, was it you, Lance, or was it you, Travis?
	We're talking about the guy that did a GoFundMe project, and he wanted to make whatever it was he's making completely in America.
	He basically just had to give up because he couldn't find some of the things that he needed.
	Yeah, there was a YouTuber, Smarter Every Day, who was trying to make just a grill scrubber here in the U.S. out of entirely U.S. sourced parts.
	And there were two parts that he just couldn't get in quantity.
	One was a specialty part, but the other, I think, was just a bolt.
	And he had a lot of trouble finding any manufacturer that made it at all at McQuanti as he wanted, especially not at a reasonable price.
	So he just had to scrub the grill scrubber project that was going to be made in the U.S. entirely.
	He's basically found other people.
	He said, we found a few of them available at such and such a place, and maybe you'll get one that is 100% made in America, but I can't promise it'll be 100% made in America.
	We may have to buy this minor part somewhere else.
	Well, that's what these policies are doing.
	They absolutely don't care.
	And he needs to go back.
	And I said this when he shut down the economy and decided he's going to centrally plan that only Walmart could stay open and things like that.
	I said he needs to go back and read Leonard Reed's iPencil, where the market puts together all these things and all these different components.
	You got rubber from this country over here, and you got graphite from that country over there.
	You got wood from Canada, maybe.
	All these different things came together.
	And without the government's help, without the central planning of government, the free market put all this together.
	And they pulled all these components from all over the world in order to manufacture a pencil.
	Well, we're not even going to be able to manufacture that if you've got Trump and Lutnik and Peter Navarra have their way.
	The harm to U.S. employment among downstream producers of items now covered will ultimately be significant, including with respect to those that are key to powering critical industries and the broader U.S. economy.
	You know, when you go back and you look at the rare earth minerals, for example, I interviewed a guy with U.S. Rare Minerals, and they were trying to put together to develop it here in the United States.
	They said we have plenty of these.
	They're not rare.
	It's just the refinement of them is rare.
	We have the materials there, but we've got to build the refining procedures to extract it from what we're already mining.
	But he said that'll take five years, even if we throw a lot of money at it.
	What Trump is doing is he's just shutting everything down, and there is no opportunity, not waiting for any kind of a transition, not allowing companies to continue to be able to make products downstream using rare minerals.
	No, he's just going to cut off the supply, just like that.
	It's boneheaded stupid.
	It's so stupid that it has to be intentional.
	That's my belief.
	Not even Trump is that stupid.
	And he did the same thing in 2025, if you remember, with a lockdown, he had farmers who were destroying food on their farm because they couldn't get it to market because their customers had been large industrial suppliers, people with toilet paper, let's say, creating these gigantic rolls of toilet paper that they use in business facilities.
	I told the story at the time when we came back from China with our daughter.
	She was not used to having toilet paper in China.
	And Karen had gotten her acclimated to it.
	And the only word she knew was mama.
	And so they went to the restroom in New York airport.
	And she sees those giant rolls of toilet paper that are like two feet in diameter or whatever.
	She grabs it and she comes out, Mama, Mama.
	Like, look what I found.
	We're fixed for life.
	We don't have to go to Costco ever again.
	Anyway, the import tariffs on some of the largest trade partners are things like 50% to Brazil because we don't like what they're doing to Bolsonaro, Bolsonaro, bows and arrows.
	50% to India because we don't like them either.
	China is only 30%.
	I say only 30%.
	Remember when it was like 100%?
	It was 145% or something like that.
	And he was talking about 200%.
	Yeah, it's just all over the place.
	It's just all over the place.
	So now it's back down to 30%.
	When you look at Mexico and Canada, they used to be our trading partners, and Trump gave them this special deal at the end of his first term.
	Now he wants 25% on Mexico and 35% on Canada.
	We don't like them.
	You know, they've got these hockey teams, and we don't like Canada.
	So we've got to punish them 35%.
	Japan and South Korea are at 15%.
	Now, the question is: will Trump's power to tax, therefore his power to destroy, be upheld by the Supreme Court?
	Well, reason talks about the issues, the legal issues behind this, because it is coming up to be looked at by the Supreme Court.
	I mean, he's been creating this trade chaos now for eight or nine months, and they're finally going to review it.
	On November the 5th, which will be like 10 months, I guess, since he became president, not quite.
	The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments, the cases arising from Trump's unilateral scheme to impose tariffs.
	The matters have been consolidated by the Supreme Court into a single case for the purposes of briefing and arguments.
	The Supreme Court will probably turn on the application of an important legal principle known as the Major Questions Doctrine.
	That doctrine says that when, and of course, major questions doctrine is not something from the Constitution, it's something invented by the Supreme Court.
	The law is clear.
	They're not going to decide this based on the law.
	They're going to decide this based on an interpretation of their previous opinions.
	This is how bad things have gotten.
	The major questions doctrine says that when the executive branch seeks to wield significant regulatory power, it must first point to an unambiguous delegation of such power by Congress to the executive.
	Well, how about if they take a look at, you know, this is being delegated supposedly by the case of emergencies.
	How about we define what a real emergency is?
	I mean, we know what it means in English, but evidently Trump doesn't speak English, or at least he doesn't care any more about the dictionary than he does about the Constitution, where the things are defined.
	So this is really Trump's patented fraud of declaring an emergency unilaterally and then saying, well, since I said it's an emergency, now I get to do whatever I wish.
	And so they said it'll take a look at the Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA, the International Emergency Economics Powers Act, that grants him virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs.
	If the Supreme Court concludes that IEPA's text, which does not mention tariffs, fails to provide clear authorization from Congress, then Trump's tariffs must be ruled illegal under the major questions doctrine.
	The Trump administration seems worried about that outcome because they've got a leg to stand on.
	This is as ridiculous as Trump's lawsuits against the press, especially the one that just got thrown out against the New York Times.
	So worried, in fact, that its brief attempts to rewrite the major questions doctrine in a way that shields the president from ever facing any of the negative judicial consequences.
	The text is an issue because that doctrine addresses the particular and recurring problem of agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.
	The argument goes that from the White House says, well, Trump is not an agency.
	In other words, the major questions thing was brought up and said, we don't want these bureaucracies creating their own policy when they weren't given that kind of power by Congress.
	And so the response from the White House, the Trump administration, well, Trump is not an agency.
	I think he is an agent for somebody.
	He's an undercover agent of chaos.
	Congress is far more likely to grant consequential power to the president than it is to grant such power to an agency as a matter of course, they say.
	But reason says, remember what type of agencies we're talking about here.
	We're talking about executive agencies.
	All of these agencies are under the executive branch.
	The president is head of the executive branch.
	The agencies are part of the executive branch.
	You know, the buck stops with him, even though MAGA doesn't want to say that.
	Under the Trump administration's own preferred theory of the unitary executive, the personnel of all such agencies are entirely subservient to the president, even though MAGA doesn't understand that.
	And they don't understand how the federal government gets its way by bribing and blackmailing people with money.
	The distinction makes no sense, they said.
	The Supreme Court drew no such distinction between the presidency and agency when it relied on the major questions doctrine to decide Joe Biden's student debt cancellation plan.
	They declared it to be unlawful because it was an example, they said, of the executive seizing the power of the legislature.
	That's precisely what's happening here.
	Do you see how similar Biden and Trump are?
	You know, both of them want to act as dictators, and they don't care a whit about the Constitution.
	One of them wants to act as a dictator to buy votes from students by canceling their student loans.
	The other one wants to curry favor with his technocratic donors by using tariffs.
	So Senator Trump's distorted theory, Biden should have won that case because Biden was supposedly not an agency.
	So the Supreme Court properly scrutinized Biden then and should similarly scrutinize Trump now.
	The whole point of the major questions doctrine is the enforcement of the separation of powers by ensuring that the executive branch does not exceed the lawful authority granted to it.
	Wouldn't it be interesting if we just held everybody to the Constitution?
	We just read that document.
	Wouldn't it be interesting?
	That would take care of the separation of powers, I think, because that's what's defined there.
	Well, I guess it's kind of interesting to see that Trump is already looking at his presidential library.
	It's something they usually wait until after they're out of office.
	But he's got Eric Trump scouting out places and he wants to build it in Miami.
	This is for a guy that I don't think has ever read a single book.
	He's going to have a presidential library.
	And it is going to be put close to Freedom Tower, which is a landmark there.
	Maybe they could call it Freedom City.
	Who knows?
	So it's going to be a really, one of the reasons that they're scouting it out right now is because it's going to be a really large development.
	It's going to have, of course, a hotel that'll be there.
	It'd be a Trump hotel.
	The first presidential library to have a hotel development.
	Whatever happened.
	The first library to have a casino in it?
	First presidential library.
	Yeah, you feeling lucky punk?
	Maybe you get some books on game theory before you go in there.
	Yeah, maybe that's what he never read, so he went out of business.
	It's kind of interesting.
	You know, Obama was going to spend, at one point, I saw that they were up to a half a billion dollars on his presidential library.
	He was going to build it in Chicago, and he was going to come.
	Then he realized nobody in Chicago can read.
	Yeah, Bill Ayers took over the educational system.
	They're just used to radicalize people.
	Now, let me be clear.
	We're going to build it here, but none of y'all are literate, so.
	And we're going to build it in the poorest neighborhood and disrupt it.
	That's what they didn't like about it.
	It was going to be this big disruption.
	And the people in Miami don't like, there's a lot of Democrats in Miami-Dade County still, obviously.
	And when I was in Florida, it was solidly New York City Democrats.
	I guess it is now as well.
	But they already had the state get in there and shut down a lot of things that they would do to object to building it.
	Maybe they could relocate the Trump Epstein statue there as part of the library, in case anybody read Epstein's birthday book.
	So they said the legislation was passed in part because of the 2006 legal fight between Trump and Palm Beach officials over an 80-foot pole flying an American flag.
	The flag was flying over the Trump golf course, and local officials said it was larger than allowed by town ordinance.
	The issue was later settled, allowing a 70-foot flagpole in a slightly different location.
	So because of that fight, they put this law in.
	Of course, that was about the same time that Trump started fighting with his best friend, Jeffrey Epstein, over a piece of real estate.
	And I think that that was the reason that Trump became the quote-unquote informant for the government.
	I think that was to get even with Epstein.
	You know, it's interesting how he can continue to go and go and go with Epstein.
	And everybody sees what he's doing to cover this stuff up.
	When you have Sarah Ferguson, who was at one time married to Prince Andrew, the guy that you see pictured with Virginia Guffery, and has been basically, he's now the man who was formerly known as Prince because he's basically been kicked out of the royal family because of this Epstein scandal.
	Well, his wife, who later they were divorced, has been kicked out of UK charities.
	They've cut their ties to her after a reported email in which she called Epstein a friend.
	That's a very different treatment than we're giving Trump here in the United States.
	There, you write one email saying, you've been a great friend to us and you're out.
	And I say, fine.
	I don't have a problem with that.
	Charities don't want to be associated with her.
	But here in the United States, this guy can write birthday wishes to Epstein.
	He can hang out with him for 15 years and he can do everything in his power as president to cover up discovery of the other friends of Epstein.
	And he doesn't pay any consequences with his supporters.
	He's paid some, but not enough.
	One of the things that always gets me is you'll see so many people saying, oh, well, the book is fake.
	The book is fake.
	There's no proof it's real.
	Whether the book is real or not, there's evidence of him having it around for 15 years.
	Like, even if you just totally disregard the book, even if I grant you that the book is fake, there is so much other hard evidence, the pictures, the videos, the way they are just latched onto each other, shoulder to shoulder, in each other's presence continually.
	This is so suspect.
	Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are.
	Exactly.
	Even if I grant you the book is fake, even if we throw that into the trash bin and ignore it, there is too much evidence already.
	The book is just the icing on the cake.
	It's there as this little extra bit on top to show what a weird, strange relationship they had.
	But there's already proof of the relationship.
	It's like what Moskowitz said.
	How do you become an FBI informant?
	There's usually some deep inside this thing.
	And now he calls it a hoax, the thing that he became an informant for.
	It's now a hoax.
	It's just Donald Trump is the very embodiment of Orwellian double think and double speak.
	More succinctly, he's just a liar.
	But yeah, it was, you know, that whole thing about it being fake, Travis, and Trump filing that lawsuit.
	That was because somebody had described it to the Wall Street Journal, and they put it out there.
	The book, I guess maybe Trump didn't know that the book existed or it was going to be released publicly.
	But then it was released by the Democrats in that committee, and we could see that it was exactly as the Wall Street Journal described it.
	But Trump is not going to back down.
	He's going to continue with this lawsuit, which may be the only way that we get the documents released during discovery.
	Who knows?
	Let's take a look at comments before we take a break.
	Yeah, North American Osippo.
	Thank you very much.
	It is good to see you.
	Hope you're doing well.
	Says, if it's any consolation to R.S. in Alabama, prayer requests last week.
	He, as I did two years ago, has time to say goodbye to his mom.
	It's not easy.
	It's heartbreaking, but I'm grateful I could be there.
	We'll be praying.
	Pray for R.S. Yeah, just to remind you, R.S.'s mother was diagnosed with cancer.
	He's asked for prayer.
	Knights of the Storm.
	Thank you very much, Jason.
	That is very generous.
	Yes, thank you.
	Says it's getting late in the month.
	Let's fill the gas tank.
	Thank you very much.
	And before we go further, let me just, I had this on my desk yesterday.
	Forgot to thank these people who have mailed contributions to us.
	Mrs. A from Brooklyn, New York, Mrs. A. William G., Jack H., Kelly M., Matt and Monica, Peter G., Ronald C., Aaron F., John R., and Charlie, APS.
	Thank you all so much.
	Yes, thank you all.
	Really do appreciate it.
	It's because you were able to continue to do this.
	NAD Lander says, have you seen the statue at the National Mall in D.C. of Trump and Epstein holding hands?
	L-O-L.
	What are we talking about?
	Yeah.
	Says, how long will the Trump Epstein statue last?
	Less than a day.
	Less than a day.
	It's already gone.
	Less than a day.
	It should be deemed a national treasure.
	Well, I'm sure they'll archive it away in a building somewhere and they'll have top men working on it.
	Guard Goldsmith, a Boston radio host today, said at least no ICE agents were hurt.
	Thank God.
	Totally dismissing the other deaths.
	Could have been, a human could have been shot, right?
	This is what's dangerous about this, folks, because the government can come up with any kind of prevarication to deny rights or humanity to any group that they don't like.
	And I mean, just look at the hate on the left to people dehumanizing them.
	Look at what they have done to unborn children, dehumanizing them.
	That allows them to rip them apart limb by limb.
	So we don't want to take any of this stuff lightly.
	And we understand that our rights are not privileges granted to us by the American government.
	The government is prohibited from infringing on these rights.
	And presumably there to protect them.
	That's the purpose of government, according to the Declaration of Independence.
	It is not to grant privileges to us.
	And if we allow them to ignore God-given rights or natural rights, however you prefer, if we allow them to do that for one class of people, in this particular case, people violated the law coming to this country illegally.
	What else are they going to do?
	It's a slippery slope, and we don't have to imagine that the government is going to do this.
	We've seen them do this over and over again.
	They must be restrained by the Constitution.
	People recognize that with the FISA Act.
	They said you're not going to spy even on foreign citizens who are in America without a search warrant.
	You can only spy on foreign citizens in foreign countries without a search warrant.
	And yet, you know, they ignored that, of course.
	North American House Hippo: when I shoot people, I always make sure I engrave my name and social security number on the bullet first.
	That's right.
	The patty wax.
	If they teach cursive in schools again, it'll be harder to engrave the bullets.
	They could do some nice scroll work, maybe some filigree.
	Yeah.
	B.L. Houghton, the statue in the center of the White House ballroom would be appropriate.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	In the ballroom.
	Son of Lord, 1337.
	Ha!
	So they only want to bring back channels the feds want back on the platform.
	That sounds like they want to control what narrative is allowed back on the platform.
	That's right.
	Citizen of America.
	Certain categories of speech are we allowed.
	Certain categories of people.
	Citizen Americaca.
	The only restitution that YouTube needs to pay is actually becoming a free, uncensored platform.
	Never going to happen.
	Never, ever going to happen.
	Says, but that won't happen with this new anti-defamation league hate bill when they start getting half a million dollar fines levied on them for allowing your freedom of speech.
	Deerzeimer, Trump Epstein statue exemplifies the level of respect rightly garnered by government.
	Citizen Americaca, David Walmart in FEMA, David Walmart in FEMA and FEMA have been in bed together at least 20 years, if not since inception.
	That's right.
	We give them our money so they can target us and our freedoms.
	You got to get them where it hurts.
	But, you know, we used to report on that, but now the police state is not an issue, and the FEMA camps are not an issue because it's Trump.
	So we're going to applaud that.
	At least that's what Alex is going to do.
	Shield Your Eyes says, war on cars.
	There is.
	That's what you and Eric talked about yesterday, partially as well.
	If you haven't seen that interview, go check it out on the Rumble channel.
	It's there.
	It's also on BitChute, Odyssey, Twitter, all over the place.
	Guard Goldsmith.
	I like David's new title for the department.
	Perhaps I was calling the Department of Communism.
	Department of Central Planning.
	They still keep the C in there.
	Just add a P at the end.
	But call me its department.
	And of course, Guard Goldsmith hosts Liberty Conspiracy, which you can find on Rumble and Twitter at 6 p.m. every day.
	And he has a Monday through Friday, and his sub stack is Guard Goldsmith.
	Nibiru 2029: 80% of all paper pulp used to manufacture in the U.S. toilet paper comes from one company in Brazil.
	Oh, sounds like something hitting the fan scenario, doesn't it?
	Audi, MRR.
	I've never walked inside of a library named after one of these APAC-owned Zionists.
	He's trying to picture what it's got nothing but Schofield Bibles.
	I'm just wondering what book he's going to put in there.
	You know, it's a guy that doesn't read.
	It's going to be a bunch of picture books.
	Yeah.
	Radis Bro.
	Thank you very much, Radis Bro.
	Very generous.
	We really do appreciate it.
	Yes, thank you.
	A shooter to distract the animals on Amerifarm that the FBI still has no clue or physical evidence on who killed Charlie Kirk, and we are just moving past it, par for the course.
	Yes.
	That's how it always goes.
	Hey, look, something else.
	Also, if you're watching the show, please, wherever you're watching it, drop a like on the stream.
	It really does help.
	I know we've got a group of people that like to come in and dislike it before the show even starts.
	So if you can drop a like on it, we'd appreciate it.
	Yeah, I got a lot of army of haters here.
	Maybe they're gropers or whatever from Nick Quinte.
	I don't know.
	I was talking before about, and I've mentioned this now.
	An article has been done by The Guardian talking about Rodrigo Duterte, the former Philippines president.
	He is being held in prison, charged with crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.
	Of course, the U.S. and Russia and China are not involved in the International Criminal Court, so it's difficult to get them to do anything.
	We have American criminals doing the same stuff that Duterte did, which is Donald Trump wants to do that, I believe.
	The charges stem from his years-long campaign and the drug war and that rights groups say have killed thousands.
	He left office in 2022.
	You know, like Trump, Duterte told his subordinates to kill suspected drug dealers without due process.
	That's what's going on off of Venezuela.
	The extrajudicial murder of thousands, tens of thousands of people in Philippines, same in principle.
	as what Trump is doing to these ships in Venezuela.
	Again, if the ship is not, you haven't verified that it has drugs, and when it sees the planes coming in, if it turns around and starts heading back to Venezuela, you are not threatened.
	America is not threatened.
	You can't make the case for that.
	And we've got high-ranking admirals who are head of the military judiciary saying the same thing.
	Said, even if you could make the case, and you couldn't, that because this is carrying drugs, we're going to blow it up.
	That's not been policy.
	Policy has always been we're going to interdict it, we're going to stop it, we're going to take the people to prison, we're going to confiscate the stuff.
	But now he's just going to do extrajudicial killings.
	And this is what happens when you start ignoring the Constitution.
	Again, the drug war was created by the United Nations.
	They created schedules, and they completely ignored the Constitution.
	Why did we have to have the 18th Amendment to prohibit alcohol?
	But we never amended the Constitution to have the war on drugs for anything.
	It's because we don't care about the Constitution anymore.
	International Criminal Court prosecutors have charged the former president of the Philippines, Duterte, with three counts of crimes against humanity over the bloody campaigns carried out during his war on drugs.
	They laid out accusations against a now 80-year-old former leader who's been in ICC detention in The Hague since March.
	They accused Duterte of designing and disseminating a policy to neutralize alleged criminals during his term as mayor of a city, later during his term as president of the country, alleging he induced hitmen to a death squad, and he provided weapons, incentives, and immunity for killing.
	Same thing that Trump is doing.
	And I think that we're probably, if we don't stop Trump, I wouldn't be surprised to see him do the same thing with the military in the U.S. cities.
	I know it sounds extreme.
	You don't think Trump is capable of doing it?
	The charge refers specifically to 76 murders.
	They offered no apologies, no excuses for his policies.
	He said to the court in The Hague, he said, I did what I had to do, whether you believe it or not, I did it for my country.
	There you go.
	Three counts of crimes and as the co-perpetrator in 19 murders.
	The real issue, however, is that the prosecutors themselves say that it is over 30,000 people that were killed in this.
	Even encouraged private citizens to shoot people on site if they thought the person was a drug dealer.
	Could you see Trump doing something like that?
	I absolutely could.
	You know, just have deputized armies of people to do that type of thing.
	I wouldn't put anything past him.
	And as I said before, Larry Ellison, a media mogul like no other before.
	So if you can't control speech by controlling the free press, then the next thing you can do is you can consolidate the free press under one of your pals who's an oligarch.
	And I think that this consolidation is really a purpose of it is not only to make money for these corrupt politicians, but I think it is also about speech control.
	They're going to press gang the press gang.
	The family of Ellison, his son is one of the ones running CBS Paramount, after Trump stopped blocking this when they capitulated to him on his personal lawsuit.
	He stopped using the government to block the sale.
	And the sale was to Larry Ellison's son.
	The Ellison family could soon control an empire that includes CBS, Paramount, Warner, CNN, and a piece of TikTok.
	That's pretty amazing.
	You know, we used to talk about the fact that there's just going to be a few media companies in terms of the news.
	Well, now there's just a few media companies in terms of everything.
	News, movies, social media, all consolidating.
	So it remains unclear exactly what's going to happen with TikTok.
	But Larry Ellison has, in the last couple of years, his fortune has skyrocketed.
	His power could exceed those of fabled predecessors like William Randolph Hearst and Pulitzer.
	Yeah, and he will be able to say, just like Erst did, you want a war?
	I can get it for you, right?
	I can use my power on the press to do that.
	TikTok is just one part of the rapidly expanding Ellison family media portfolio.
	Ellison's son David, who recently secured an $8 billion deal for Paramount and CBS, is busy putting his own stamp on them and is widely reported to be preparing a much bigger bid for Warner, which includes CNN.
	And there's not going, you know, interestingly enough, the FCC is not going to fight this kind of consolidation.
	Just as we talked about, how do we get a few banks, a half dozen banks that were too big to fail?
	And it always goes back to that seminal merger between Bank of America in California and Nations Bank in North Carolina.
	As Gerald Santee has pointed out, it was first they removed the restrictions on interstate banking.
	And then in the Clinton administration, you had Erksome Boyle.
	His name was Erkskin.
	I can't even remember his real name now.
	He was an Irksome Boyle on your Erskine Bowles.
	Erskine Bowles, thank you.
	He was, I think, it was a high position in the Clinton administration.
	I think he was chief of staff for a while.
	And he had been involved in the banking industry in Charlotte, which is where Nations Bank was headquartered.
	And so he got the merger approved.
	And I remember when it happened, and everybody said, you're going to wind up with a half dozen gigantic banks nationwide, which is what happened.
	And that's when they were able to do the pump and dump in the real estate with the securitization.
	And then they got bailed out while hundreds of banks every year were failing in subsequent years.
	So everything is consolidating, said a media historian at the University of Maine.
	What makes these deals different is that they are across multiple platforms.
	To have an opportunity to establish an editorial line across TikTok, CBS News, and CNN, that's a new world, he said.
	Paramount declined to comment.
	On a recent day, he saw the value of his Oracle holdings increase about $100 billion, making him briefly the richest man in the world.
	Mr. Musk has now taken that back, but Ellison has a net worth higher than $367 billion.
	This kind of consolidation is for control, for cronies, for corruption.
	Ellison is 81 years old.
	In 1977, he and two colleagues started software development labs.
	Within a few years, it was renamed Oracle.
	He was less the technical genius than he was the chief salesman.
	His son is in the discussions to acquire the Free Press, a new digital publication that presents itself in opposition to traditional news media.
	But it is run by Barry Weiss, who's likely to be given some oversight of CBS.
	Ms. Weiss formerly worked as an editor for the opinion section of the New York Times.
	So you can see she's on the far left here, and she is a heavy, heavy Zionist.
	So Trump, meanwhile, pressuring his attorney sycophant Pam Bondi to charge his political foes.
	As I said at the beginning of the program, we'll be charging James Comey.
	I have no love of James Comey.
	I would have thought that it was enough for Trump to humiliate him by firing him on TV.
	He was like in California or something, and he was about to give a speech, and he saw on TV that he had been fired.
	He wasn't even notified.
	Anyway, we're going to take a quick break, folks, and we will be right back.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
	I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
	You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
	And I could, if only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful gray MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
	But he told me to get lost.
	Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at the DavidKnightshow.com.
	You should be able to buy me several hundred.
	Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
	I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.
	If you want to save on shipping, just put it in the next package of bombs and missiles coming from the USA.
	Well, Jimmy Kimmel came back and, as I mentioned, I think it was on Tuesday night.
	So people were reacting to it yesterday.
	As I said before, you know, when Trump spoke at the UN, he got it right.
	He was on the right side of the issue in terms of climate.
	Unfortunately, he doesn't explain why climate change is a fraud.
	He just pronounces it that way.
	And I said, I find it very damaging to see this guy on my side.
	And of course, we've had some people on the left who've said that about Jimmy Kimmel.
	The sad thing is that Trump has made this vile, disgusting, unfunny, quote-unquote, comedian who is out there saying, yeah, Wheezy, you didn't get the vaccine, so we're just going to let you die.
	You know, that type of stuff.
	Not to mention his racist comedy.
	Really was racist.
	I guess his blackface, if ever, I mean, that really sets them off against anyone except for Jimmy Kimmel.
	He gets a pass on that.
	He gets a pass on sexual harassment and videos that he's done.
	He's done some really vile and disgusting things.
	You can see him if you care to look up what I'm characterizing here.
	But when he does his comedy bits, Kimmel and bits, and they're not funny, they're just political.
	He's now become a hero to many on the left.
	He's now become a victim of Trump censorship after the First Amendment.
	And I really don't like that.
	And so there's conservatives saying, you know, why did Trump do this?
	And people on the left are saying, we don't want him as our totem for free speech.
	It's really reprehensible.
	His voice breaking at times, Kimmel said he understood why his comments last week seemed ill-timed or unclear or both.
	He said, it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man, he said, and he choked up.
	So I see those people on sell these people on social media saying, well, quite an acting job that he's got there.
	I don't think Jimmy Kimmel can act.
	I think he was generally choked up about that.
	I would think that any human being would be.
	But it wasn't really, he wasn't criticizing Charlie Kirk.
	He wasn't even really criticizing MAGA that much.
	What he was criticizing was Donald Trump.
	I played the clip for you at the beginning of his monologue on Monday, that Monday, not this last Monday.
	And he played that clip where Donald Trump was asked by the press, what do you think of Charlie Kirk?
	Oh, yeah, it's horrible.
	But then he says, just immediately pivots, but hey, have you seen my ballroom?
	Let's talk about that.
	And his comment, which was funny and devastating satire, he said Trump showed as much compassion as an eight-year-old who just had his pet goldfish die.
	That was brutally honest, true satire.
	And that, I think, just penetrated to the heart of the issue.
	It wasn't saying that it was the right that was doing it.
	And of course, Brendan Carr has tried to claw this back and portray himself not as just a shill henchman for Trump to come after his enemies and the press.
	He says, well, you know, these stations have licenses, and they are supposed to, as part of that license, they're supposed to be true with broadcasts.
	If they're deliberately giving fake news on the broadcast, well, guess what?
	Who in their right mind would believe that Jimmy Kimmel was giving news?
	It's obviously his spin, his opinion, as stupid and as wrong as it is.
	It's still his opinion, and everybody understands that.
	Trump is also trying to come after the New York Times because they had an op-ed piece endorsing Lala Harris.
	You are allowed to have opinions.
	You're allowed to have satire.
	And a comedian in a late-night show is not news.
	And an op-ed piece is not presenting itself as news.
	Even if you don't agree with it, you're not allowed to take it down.
	And so it was...
	We could do away with a lot of the issues caused by late-night TV propagandists, by just restricting the voting rights back to what the founders had originally had it as.
	Just head of household, right?
	Yeah.
	Landowning males, you know.
	Well, it wasn't even landowning males.
	If you were a widow and you owned the, you were head of household.
	So if you were a widow and you owned property, you were allowed to vote.
	You know, it was just one vote per household.
	And it was people who had a stake in the community.
	But getting back to this, Trump has haranged him as saying he's horrible.
	His show ratings are horrible.
	And one of the things that Kimmel said when he came back, he said, well, he repeated those charges, things that Trump had said about him.
	He says, well, I guess he fixed that, didn't he?
	He got 14 million views on YouTube.
	And when he came back, he got massive.
	That's why I say Trump made him bigger than ever because Trump violated the Constitution.
	Trump made the Constitution, the First Amendment, smaller than ever.
	He minimized them and he enlarged Jimmy Kimmel.
	I mean, what's wrong with this picture here?
	So Kimmel mentioned that some Republican senators, like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, had stood by the First Amendment.
	And he said, that's not legal.
	That's not American.
	That is un-American.
	And it is so dangerous.
	And he was right about all that.
	Trump has put this guy in, he's elevated him by doing this.
	So the local stations are still going to, local franchises Sinclair and Nexstar are still not going to carry his show, which was always their prerogative.
	So Trump had won the lawsuit against ABC in the past because Stephanophilus had said that the lawsuit from Eugene Carroll was for rape, and it wasn't.
	It was for sexually abusing and defaming her.
	One of the things is just the president of the United States should be above these sort of petty back and forths with late night TV hosts.
	That's right.
	Your focus shouldn't be on what Jimmy Kimmel says about you on TV.
	You're supposed to be the head of state negotiating the troubled waters of the world for the country.
	And yet here you are, Jimmy Kimmel was mean to me.
	He was very rude.
	Don't like that man.
	He shouldn't be punching down.
	No.
	He should be above Jimmy Kimmel, as you said, and he should be under the Constitution.
	But he's simply a narcissist.
	I see all these people online saying, well, the presidency always deserves your respect.
	He's the president, so he deserves your respect.
	Then he should act like he's worthy of respect.
	Yeah.
	Always in the past, presidents have come under withering criticism and false accusations because they're public figures and because they take positions that are very unpopular people.
	And they've always risen above that rather than descending down and punching the people.
	But that's Trump.
	He says, I think we're going to test ABC out on this, said Trump.
	He said, let's see how we do.
	Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million.
	This one sounds even more lucrative.
	A true bunch of losers.
	No, he's the biggest loser.
	So Kimmel also came after Brendan Carr.
	He said, telling an American company we can do this the easy way or the hard way, or that these companies can find ways to change conduct and take action on Kimmel, or there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
	He said, in addition to being a direct violation of the First Amendment, it's not particularly intelligent threat to make in public.
	He laughed about it.
	He said, you know, this guy is, as Ted Cruz said, he's acting like a mafioso.
	But he goes, the mafioso are smarter.
	They don't usually make these threats in public.
	Usually to get these threats, you've got to spend all night sitting in a car outside of an Italian restaurant with a microphone waiting to catch this stuff on tape.
	Exactly right.
	So the FCC's Brendan Carr says that the Democrats are engaging in projection and distortion over these remarks.
	He's not telling you the truth still.
	Again, I don't think that it really has anything to do with accusing MAGA.
	If it did have something to do with MAGA, I mean, you know, who was damaged by this?
	Was it a specific person?
	You got to have standing in this.
	And so where is Mr. MAGA who is going to come back on this?
	It was really coming after Trump.
	He said, we have a broadcast license.
	There's a public interest standard, which means that you have to operate consistently in the public interest.
	As I said before, when you look at these claims about public interest and the public standard, think about public health.
	Every time they put public in front of something, it's there to wield it as a club.
	And so in the past, he has said exactly the opposite of what he has said this time.
	Disney has painted itself into a corner that it can't win, says John Nolte at Breitbart.
	He said, they continue to pour hate on normal people, or they can lose what's left of their customer base, the far left.
	Disney has so alienated us with its decade-long campaign to groom our children and warp our beloved movies and TV icons, and all Disney has left are its far-left customers.
	Those far-left customers are now the tail that wags the rabid dog.
	The problem is, is that John Nolte is one of these people who is, and Breitbart in general is probably an example now of the worst of the Hegelian press.
	And I say that in every area.
	They just, they don't look objectively or constitutionally at anything.
	I mean, I still go there to take a look at what they're saying, but they're more rabidly right-wing than Mediaite is left-wing.
	And they've become a parody of news themselves.
	So, you know, this is also John Nolte, not just pushing tribalism now over the First Amendment.
	This is a guy who pushed the vaccines, who stood behind the lockdowns and the mass mandates throughout all this stuff on Breitbart.
	And he was ratioed by the commenters on that website for doing so, but he never changed his mind.
	And so, you know, this is, he wants to talk about the rabid leftists.
	And yes, Disney is pushing that agenda.
	But as I said many times before, said it today, Trump pushed that agenda as well.
	He pushed that agenda as an entertainer.
	He pushed that agenda as a politician.
	He pushed the training stuff.
	So do people like Michael Flynn and the military.
	So the reality is that Mediight says that the left should be embarrassed by Jimmy Kimmel.
	This is a left-wing publication.
	They're embarrassed by Jimmy Kimmel because of who he is.
	And they're upset that Trump has made him into a hero.
	They said that Trump left little doubt that intimidation was the intention of his administration while they raged over Kimmel's return to the airwaves on Tuesday night.
	So Brendan Carr wants to say, we were just talking about the local stations.
	We weren't talking about the overall network.
	Brendan Carr says, we don't have any authority to tell ABC what to do.
	This is a network.
	They can put the stuff up there.
	But we do have authority over the local stations that broadcast this out.
	And it was never our intention to cancel them.
	The problem is that he's lying.
	And it's pretty easy to see that he's lying.
	Trump was saying before it happened, and he was saying after it happened, and he's saying it now after he's back, that he wants to take him off.
	And Trump wrote, I can't believe ABC fake news gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back.
	The White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled.
	In other words, first they were going to do what we demanded, and that is to change their content for my feelings.
	And now they're going to put him back.
	That's why I said, we're going to test ABC out on this, he said, and I'm going to get even more money from them this time.
	Well, again, to the news outlets stating that Jimmy Kimmel suggested the suspect was a MAGA Republican, Media said, I would strongly encourage you to watch the actual clip and see if you still think that's the case.
	And so, you know, if he slandered MAGA, who has standing in that?
	And of course, genuine threats and slander are things that people can take issue with personally, and there are remedies for that that don't involve censorship, broad censorship.
	In the wake of an actual tragedy, it left a left-winger, saw a left-winger gun down a father, husband, and son.
	This person's going with the established narrative.
	So a millionaire progressive, with inertia alone to thank for his continued employment, used his platform to smear his political opponents.
	Well, Jimmy Kimmel's speech, as usual, was reprehensible and not funny, but free speech allows reprehensible, offensive things.
	If you don't allow reprehensible, offensive things, you don't support free speech, period, if you only support it for the things that you like.
	Reason says Trump's vision of broadcast regulation is the threat to conservatives.
	And, you know, it's a threat, not just the conservatives, folks, it's a threat to liberals.
	It's a threat to libertarians.
	It's a threat to Christians.
	It's a threat to anyone with an opinion.
	It's a threat to anyone who makes a joke, anyone who makes a meme.
	Censorship is censorship, and it will be applied to everyone.
	And we've already seen this.
	This is not understanding a principle.
	It's not that we're on a slippery slope.
	We've already at the bottom of the hill, folks, with this stuff.
	With 97% of the stories are bad, said Trump on Friday.
	And so it's no longer free speech.
	When TV networks take a great story and make it bad, I think that's illegal.
	This is a child.
	You know, you talk about an eight-year-old and his goldfish, bad goldfish.
	I imagine he came up with that age because that's the way Trump speaks.
	Trump is wrong on both points, says Reason.
	Yes, it is both stupid and authoritarian.
	And groping towards a justification for the regulatory threats that preceded Kimmel's expulsion, Trump embraced a principle that historically is bad for conservatives, one that they are apt to regret reviving.
	All they do is hit Trump, said the president, referring to himself.
	They're licensed, and they're not allowed to do that.
	Well, you are not allowed as a president to take unconstitutional actions because your feelings are hurt.
	He made similar noises during his first administration.
	He said, network news has become so partisan, distorted, and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.
	But his FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, said exactly the opposite.
	He would not do it.
	I believe in the First Amendment, said Pai.
	The FCC, under my leadership, will stand for the First Amendment.
	And under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke the license of a broadcast station based on content of a particular newscast.
	Now, however, Brendan Carr is there, and he is willing to be a sycophant to Trump.
	He has no such constitutional compunctions, says Reason.
	He preposterously invoked the FCC's policy regarding broadcast news distinction.
	And again, like I said before, and they make the point, who in the right mind would think that this is broadcast news?
	But let's just set that aside for a moment.
	They don't even have, shouldn't have the authority to determine what is true, what is fair, what is right.
	And that's why they talked about conservatives.
	Yes, taking away free speech hurts everyone.
	But Carr and Trump have alluded to the broadcaster's vague duty to operate, quote, in the public interest, you know, like the lockdowns or in the public health interest.
	And yet, this is all reminiscent, says Reason, of the FCC's defunct fairness doctrine.
	I've mentioned this over and over again.
	It required broadcasters to present contrasting views when they covered controversial issues.
	So just say, well, you're not even going to be allowed to talk about that issue.
	We're just going to keep that.
	And anything that they didn't want to talk about, they just label it as controversial.
	The FCC repudiated that policy during the Reagan administration precisely because it impinged on First Amendment rights.
	The Kennedy administration, for example, had deployed the fairness doctrine against the president's political opponents.
	Our massive strategy, said former Assistant Secretary of Commerce William Rutter, he acknowledged a decade later, our massive strategy was to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and to harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenges would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and they would decide it was too expensive to continue.
	By getting rid of the fairness doctrine, it allowed the political speech on talk radio, enabling the rise of influential conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh.
	Exhuming and extending that policy, as Carr and Trump seek to do, would be a short-sighted and constitutionally dubious policy.
	Although it might feel good right now to threaten Jimmy Kimmel, said Ted Cruz, when it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it.
	It is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in a position of saying, we're going to decide what speech we like and what we don't.
	And we're going to threaten to take you off the air if we don't like what you're saying.
	And as Reason says, the root of the problem is the arbitrary distinction that the Supreme Court has drawn between speech that is aired on TV or radio stations and speech in every other medium.
	And it was people like John Nolte at Breitbart who was slamming his fists on the table saying, that's our airways.
	That's our airways.
	He sounds like a communist, because in this he is.
	In this, people like Nolte at Breitbart want censorship like a communist and they think that the airways belong to everyone.
	They don't.
	There was an auction.
	And you need to follow that in terms of property.
	You know, once you sell this, once you auction it off, go away.
	You know, we don't need to have an entire bureaucracy for that.
	So Reason said that kind of distinction, to say that speech in every other medium will be free except on TV and radio, makes no sense.
	And it's even harder to defend in the current media environment.
	Government licensing of newspapers, websites, or streaming services should be a constitutional non-starter, inviting all sorts of interference with freedom of speech.
	Government licensing of broadcasters poses similar perils as Trump and Carr seem keen to demonstrate.
	It's all simple.
	You just go back to the Constitution, which these people will not do.
	So, and when you look at this, where does this go?
	It goes everywhere, as I said.
	It's not just going to be conservatives.
	It'll be liberals, libertarians, it'll be Christians.
	Here's an example.
	The U.S. Supreme Court is taking a look at a counseling ban that has been put up in Colorado.
	This is a Christian counselor who says she works with children, and she's got teenagers who are unconcerned or struggling with their unwanted sexual feelings, and they might seek out her help.
	But under the new Colorado state law, it allows her to support them if they want to have same-sex attraction or to imagine that they're in the wrong body.
	But if you want to support a biblical understanding of sex, she's not allowed to say that.
	This is how this operates.
	Understand that when you get rid of free speech and you trample on it, it's going to be used by the very worst actors in society.
	You want to talk about the radical left?
	Well, don't give them that tool.
	Just like you don't want to give the radical left, like Biden, the tool to do gun control by executive order.
	Penalties for breaking the law are severe.
	A $5,000 fine for each violation and a loss of her license as a counselor.
	On October the 7th, the Supreme Court will hear her lawsuit.
	The person is Kaylee Chiles, challenging the law.
	At issue in the closely watched case, is a deceptively simple.
	Is counseling speech or is it conduct?
	If it's speech, hey, it's going to be protected.
	Wait a minute.
	If it's conduct, it's the free exercise of religion, isn't it?
	Both of those are protected under the First Amendment.
	You can say the free exercise of religion is conduct.
	Well, that's fine.
	It's still protected, just like a protest that is peaceful is protected as well.
	Why would that even matter?
	So this is a long article talking about, is it going to be speech?
	Is it going to be conduct?
	But the First Amendment protects both of those things.
	The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Colorado and said it was conduct so we can regulate it.
	So we can tell you that as a counselor, you can counsel people that they can have same-sex attraction.
	They can imagine they're in the wrong body.
	The LGBT is fine.
	Just don't talk about the B-I-B-L-E.
	Okay?
	Don't talk about reality.
	Childs, who works in Colorado Springs, only talks with her clients.
	She does not engage in discredited practices like aversion therapy or shock therapy that wants to find conversion therapy.
	And I've said from the very beginning, these terms are carefully chosen to weaponize.
	They use the term conversion because they want to come after Christians.
	They use the term therapy because they want to go back to a time when psychologists were, or psychiatrists, I think, are the ones who practice it, when they were using electroshock therapy against people.
	So they carefully put those things together, kind of like a portmanteau, you know, conversion therapy, so they could come after both counselors and Christians doing this, psychiatrists, and Christians.
	But they want to come after Christian conversion.
	We have seen that in other countries where they've used that same kind of terminology.
	An alliance defending freedom attorney representing Chiles compared her case to the NAACP in 63 versus Button, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Virginia law limiting the solicitation of legal services.
	Virginia had used a law to block the NAACP from providing legal assistance to African Americans who faced racial discrimination, claiming the state was regulating conduct.
	But the Supreme Court ruled the NAACP's legal activities were modes of expression and association protected with the 14th Amendment and the First Amendment.
	Look, there's no doubt about it that this is covered under free exercise religion and free speech.
	Circuit courts, however, have been divided on this issue.
	The 3rd and the 11th circuits have both struck down counseling bans as unconstitutional infringements on free speech.
	But the 9th circuit, the liberal Ninth Circuit out in California, in 2022, upheld a Washington law that was similar to Colorado's.
	And so now we've had the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals uphold this with Colorado.
	And they are 1,000% wrong.
	The Supreme Court did not review that previous ruling, but Justice Clarence Thomas wrote at the time that Washington's law strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.
	In Chiles' case, the 10th Circuit Judge, Harris Harts, wrote a dissent criticizing fellow judges for playing a labeling game rather than looking at what the regulation took aim at, the expressive content of what is said.
	A ruling in Chiles' case will reach professional professions beyond counseling, however.
	A friend of the court brief filed by the Christian Legal Society addresses a spillover effect on bar rules in some states that attempt to discipline attorneys not only for conduct but also for speech that the licensing entities believe is harassing or discriminatory.
	That could include a view that same-sex marriage is immoral.
	Scruggs rejected Colorado's claims that merely talking to kids about their feelings regarding their biological sex is harmful.
	He said, if you dig deep, they admit that there's no proof of actual harm here.
	But see, this is really a freedom of religion issue.
	Who are the secular atheist courts to say that they are going to define marriage?
	Government should have no role in defining marriage.
	And it is a religious issue.
	Who are they to say that I'm not allowed to express my religious beliefs?
	It's absurd.
	It's tyrannical.
	Officials shouldn't be cutting off dialogue with kids.
	The government is saying that we know better than counselors and kids about what views they should adopt and what ideas they should hear.
	That really is a global threat to the First Amendment right there.
	And I think the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that you can talk about the kids sexually in one direction, but you can't talk about the other direction.
	How in the world could anyone try to justify that?
	Travis, you want to get the comments here?
	Yeah, soon I've let you know we have Tony Arburn coming up right after this, so we will be going to him shortly.
	Klaus Schwab's cat, responding to Audi, says, I feel like I've stumbled into a FEMA camp upon entering Walmart.
	Audi, MRR, want to get rid of the cartels and the drug war?
	That's right.
	And that is the case.
	I mean, you've got these cartels.
	You just had Republican Congressman Mills, who has introduced a bill to expand the authorization for the use of military force.
	We don't do declarations of war anymore.
	Instead, we give blanket power to the president over categories of things.
	Do whatever he wants, whatever country you want to go to.
	And he says, if you look at how just one cartel, the Sinaloa cartel, is involved, that could give the president the power to go to war with over 40 different countries.
	It's amazing when you look at the reach of the Sinaloa cartel.
	And all of that was created just like Al Capone's gang was created with alcohol prohibition.
	We have created a multinational narco criminal enterprise because of the stupid war on drugs.
	Audi.
	Yeah.
	Audi MRR.
	I predicted that the Kimmel thing was a psyop.
	I knew he'd be back on TV in no time, and now he's gotten more publicity than he has in many years.
	Kimmel is one of them.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Guard Goldsmith says Kimmel got six million viewers on his return.
	Yeah.
	And 14 million on YouTube.
	Yeah.
	Took care of the ratings, Sydney.
	He's back.
	The real octo spook says Jimmy Kimmel has a lot in common with the mouse that roared.
	Didn't someone say something about 15 minutes of fame?
	Yeah, that's a funny movie.
	Principal of the movie, Peter Sellers.
	They have a small country.
	They've gone bankrupt.
	And they said, what do we do?
	We declare war on America and then we surrender and then they will give us all kinds of foreign aid like the Marshall Plan.
	Got to scroll the window up.
	Audi MRR.
	Jimmy Kimmel is actually a very funny guy, but once he made his deal with the devil, he was forced to make CIA talking points funny, which is a tall order.
	Just ask Colbert.
	I don't think I've ever actually watched anything from Jimmy Kimmel.
	I haven't really either because what the late night shows have become.
	It's such obvious mockingbird media and it's just disgusting and unfunny.
	They're not even clever about what they have to say.
	Yeah.
	I remember watching David Letterman when I was very, very young with you guys occasionally.
	But that's it.
	Yeah, he was funny at the beginning.
	And then he went down that path as well.
	We actually got a chance to meet David Letterman once in a Beverly Hills Hotel that we were both staying at.
	And that was, we weren't paying for it.
	We were guests of our distributor who had us there.
	And we got a video of us talking to him.
	He was a funny guy.
	Yeah.
	He made a couple of jokes right there.
	Epstein Island.
	I still remember what Kimmel said about the unvaccinated who needed emergency surgery.
	Yeah, that was his so long wheezy or whatever.
	That's right.
	So he's not a very compassionate man at all.
	Timed non-tides.
	I would say that if they, social media, have gotten the benefit of being ruled a platform, then we ought to have free speech rights there, just like the sidewalk, City Hall, on the phone, etc.
	I've always made that argument.
	That's right.
	And as a matter of fact, Jack Dorsey said in multiple congressional hearings, he said, we are the digital public square.
	And I said, well, then we've already got Supreme Court precedent saying that even if the digital public, even if the public square is privately owned, the First Amendment applies there.
	So just apply that.
	That's the Marsh versus Alabama case.
	Audi MRR, MAGA is being tricked into approving the attack on the First Amendment.
	They've been tricked into supporting Trump no matter what he does.
	They've been tricked into a lot of things.
	Bin Laden Bernanke, one, Jimmy Kimmel has a smaller audience than Me TV Primetime.
	Most of them are older and usually in bed by eight or nine, so that's a minuscule amount of people.
	Kimmel visited Epstein Island over 20 times.
	Oh, wow.
	Did he?
	I didn't realize that.
	Well, we're going to take a very short break, and when we come back, we're going to have Tony Ardeman of Wise Wolf Gold joining us.
	We'll be right back.
	You're
	listening to The David Knight Show.
	Sounds good.
	Welcome back to the Gold Exchange.
	Yeah, welcome back.
	Joining us now is Tony Ardeman.
	And we're going to talk a little bit about the Shanghai Gold Exchange and what's happening.
	Last time you were on, Tony, you talked about the Hong Kong Gold Exchange, I think.
	And so China is making a huge move to accumulate gold.
	That's been one of the many driving factors.
	I mean, we're into record territory.
	We've passed in terms of real terms when gold shot up to $800 an ounce.
	But it's because there are so many different things that are driving it simultaneously.
	And one of those is, as you've been talking about for the longest time, the push by a lot of central banks to accumulate gold, but nobody is pushing it like China.
	As a matter of fact, they're trying to de-westernize the global bullion market, says Zero Hedge.
	London and New York have been places where gold has been stored in the past.
	China's trying to replace that with Shanghai, perhaps Hong Kong as well.
	What's your take on that?
	I thought the story last week about the Hong Kong play was really important because we already have the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and it just highlights the move that China is making, as well as the BRICS nations, to make the move of commodity pricing eastward.
	There's another headline up that's up on Zero Hedge.
	And then just, I mean, really putting some emphasis on what's going on with the West.
	And Canada has no gold reserves, David.
	Did you know that?
	I know.
	It has zero gold reserves.
	But they've got a central banker as their prime minister or whatever.
	So I guess they're covered.
	You don't need gold if you've got a central banker.
	I think that's a key indicator of where we're headed in this decade and especially in this century is that everything is flowing out of the hands of the West.
	And they had an interview with Ray Dalio, and he was talking about the juxtaposition of 1945 when the United States had about 80% of the world's money.
	We were about 5% of the world's population, about 50% or more of the wealth.
	And then that's completely dissipated and it's flowing eastward and is being decentralized out of our hands for sure.
	So dollar domination is really, I think in this timeline, it's really in danger of losing more and more market share.
	Yes.
	Zero Hedge had a headline said nobody is hedged for the real gold panic.
	That hasn't even started yet.
	No.
	No, I don't think it has.
	Matter of fact, it's interesting.
	Every day I start calculating the ratios and not only the gold to silver ratios, but the Bitcoin to gold ratios.
	And Bitcoin has slipped a little bit off of, I think, AI expansion and other things that have happened since the rate cut.
	And that's probably temporary.
	But it went from 31 ounces of gold to make one Bitcoin to about 29.
	And so that slipped a little bit.
	But the real metric to watch is the gold to silver ratio.
	That's starting to come back to normal, or at least somewhat normal levels.
	I mean, we got up to past 100 ounces of silver to make one ounce of gold not too long ago when it was $35 an ounce for gold and $3,500 an ounce or $3,500 an ounce of gold and $35 an ounce for silver, David.
	And now we're at 83 to one because silver past the $44 mark.
	Wow.
	Wow.
	Yeah, it truly is amazing.
	We're hitting one all-time high after the other.
	But as I said, there's a lot of different reasons, especially for us as individuals.
	I mean, look at the rise of stablecoin.
	There was an article from Zero Hedge talking about a $100 billion a year battle that is shaping up between credit cards and stablecoins.
	But I guess, though, really, a stablecoin would be more like a debit card.
	It lets you pay for things instantaneously.
	But we live in a credit card society, don't we, where people are borrowing from the future.
	So I don't know really how much of that is really going to be over the credit cards versus that.
	I think you see the credit card companies are merging with the stablecoin companies as Visa merged with the biometric company.
	They want to be there for the surveillance.
	So I imagine they could process a transaction and still put it on a credit card account for you and charge you 30 or 40 percent interest.
	That's why we're going to continue to allow that to happen.
	Yeah.
	I think what makes the stablecoin battle between credit card processing and stablecoins is the fees.
	It's merchant fees.
	I think that'll be their selling point.
	As a matter of fact, I saw it was, I think, a Coinbase commercial about a year ago, and it was highlighting how small business could open up a Coinbase account.
	And if they took crypto, that their fees would be lower than if they just took credit cards, which I thought it was interesting.
	And then as you enter in stable coins, now I've been looking into stablecoins because I thought, well, if you're going to deal, if you're going to have Bitcoin or something, you should have stablecoins.
	That's a whole other, like to actually deal in stable coins is a lot harder to deal in than it is Bitcoin, at least right now.
	You have to go through a third party, which I think that's probably how it's going to be.
	It's not going to be the third parties that are connected to Trump, like Lutnik and others.
	Yeah.
	Right.
	It'll be something else.
	So it's not, you know, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
	It's probably a lot of the same entities or interest, except it's a different vehicle, and they can be competitive because for the longest time, you know, the hidden cost of credit card fees, and I know this from being in the gasoline business my entire life, and 3% at the pump and how that looks on your balance sheet when you're selling gasoline at the retail level, that the credit card companies make more than the retailer most of the time.
	You know, if it's over $3 a gallon, that's $0.09 a gallon.
	And the retailer usually makes about a nickel.
	So that'll be interesting.
	I think all the infrastructure that's being put in right now with stable coins, you and I both know that it's not for, it's not to save the merchant, it's not to save the retailer or the operator fees or anything like that.
	It's another transfer of well.
	Oh, yeah.
	Yeah.
	But I imagine people, a lot of retailers would give it a chance because it is a really expensive thing to take credit cards.
	I remember when we had our retail stores, video stores, it was such a big bite that I said, well, we have the ability to, you know, with the system that I had written, we had the ability if somebody had late fees that they'd accrued because they turned something in late.
	You know, we could have balances on a customer's account so they could pay it off later.
	So we tried it as an experiment.
	It was a very short experiment because what happened was we said, well, if you're going to use a credit card for this small amount, let's just defer it next time you come in.
	You can pay it, you know, with a check or cash or something like that.
	And that did not work because people wanted to use credit cards.
	And we as a store didn't have any club over them in terms of if they don't pay the bill, they're not going to get a hit on their credit rating and that type of thing.
	So we had to stop that pretty quickly.
	But it is really a high fee.
	And as we look at the banks, you're talking about how stablecoin is set up, centrally controlled, just like a central bank, except that it's a crony system.
	They have a way that they are going to know their customer and all the rest of these so-called anti-money laundering laws that are out there.
	Vietnam is showing the pattern.
	We talked about this last week, I think.
	They just immediately closed 86 million bank accounts because people did not sign in and give them their biometric data.
	It's like, okay, well, if we don't have your biometric data, we're closing your account right now.
	I think we could see that type of thing happening in the West.
	That's the way that they're going to roll this thing out.
	Do we lose you?
	Yeah, I think unfortunately that's the future, especially as everything continues to get more and more digitized.
	Yeah, that's right.
	They're going to force our hands.
	Are they coming through, okay, Dave?
	Yeah, you're coming through now, yes.
	So I think that's the direction that they're going to go without a doubt.
	And I think that's why there's, as an individual, we're looking not only at the general economy and at the price of gold, but we're also looking at the control that's coming through with all this.
	The World Economic Forum has got a plan to overhaul the global financial system by monetizing nature, don't they?
	This is an article from LifeSight.
	And we've talked about this before, how Besant, as well as Lutnik, as well as Bergham, who Trump put ahead as head of the Interior Department, has all the different parks and public lands in it.
	They've talked about how, yeah, we need to monetize and put to work our natural resources.
	And so I think that they will monetize nature.
	They'll come up with some kind of derivative system to do that.
	And that's one of the ways that we will wind up owning nothing and they will have everything.
	People like Larry Fink at BlackRock and Hoffman and others, that's exactly what the World Economic Forum wants, isn't it?
	Well, unfortunately, I think this is a natural outcropping of what happens when you have fiat currency.
	When you demonetize your currency, you monetize everything else.
	And they're looking for value in everything.
	That's the reason civilization is built on sound money.
	That's the whole point of having a medium of exchange.
	And if you lose that, then there's chaos.
	And then you go back to, I mean, in a sense, a bartering economy, but you find value in everything else.
	It's the reason why we have such a massive housing bubble.
	It's why we have a debt crisis, a debt, a debt time bomb around the world.
	It's having to borrow against assets and everything to outpace the loss of purchasing power in the currencies.
	And that's another reason why you're seeing.
	Yeah, that's a good point.
	You're saying you got to have some pretense that your fiat currency is linked to something that's real.
	I mean, first with first Bretton Woods, it was gold.
	And then with the second one, they made it with oil or with energy, right?
	And so now what's left?
	You know, they're going to monetize it with the real estate that's here in the United States.
	And that may very well be what they're going to do.
	They'll monetize everything.
	And it'll be, it's still a fiat currency.
	Even if we move to a digitized system, like a stablecoin-backed system, it's still going to be based off of serial, you know, blue sky.
	It's going to be based off of nothing.
	It's going to be based off of GDP and economic growth and all the rest of that.
	Unfortunately, we're seeing the endgame here where you can't inflate your way out.
	You can't print your way out of economic downturns.
	And a lot of the things, the metrics are going backwards, used to when you lower interest rates and there would be sell-offs and precious metals because people would be taking, you know, getting liquid in positions to buy into the market.
	Now you're just seeing gold just continue to go up.
	Every time I come on the show, it's breaking another all-time high.
	I think silver is about to do the same thing.
	And I don't want to give investment advice, but I'm looking at silver having a big breakout here probably this year going into the final quarter of 2025.
	And as of right now, I'm stockpiling.
	If I can get silver and keep it, I'm holding it.
	If I can financially afford to keep it on the books, I'm doing that because I think there's going to be a squeeze.
	Even with the amount that's being sold right now, it's really interesting.
	Buyers aren't necessarily there, but the price keeps going up.
	So you have to take it to the wholesalers.
	And I just don't like that game.
	I think there's something inherently wrong with the price rising and retail has slowed down.
	And we still have, you know, the smaller buyers are there, but not like they used to be where people are buying big chunks at a time on the retail level.
	I'm watching that very closely because those two things don't go together.
	The retail slowing down and the price going up.
	That means institutions and governments are buying.
	And they're signaling something I think that we need to pay attention to.
	Yeah, they've been heavily manipulating silver.
	We said before, you know, it was just a few months ago.
	I remember seeing a YouTube video.
	Somebody sent it to me as a listener and said, look at this.
	And it was a small show of precious metals.
	And the guys that were there that were dealers, the guy went around and talked to them.
	He said, yeah, everybody wants to sell silver, but they're not buying.
	He said, look at the ratio here, how low silver is.
	It's a great deal.
	And so we're buying all that we can.
	But the retail people are not, for whatever reason, they're selling their silver instead of buying it.
	So there's a lot of manipulation that's been going on for that for quite some time.
	I worked with the shop in Denison yesterday in Texas.
	My old new bank, the branch bank that I took over, I'll have to send you some pictures of the signage.
	It's a little bit of an experiment.
	We're wise wolf gold, silver, bitcoin, and I rebranded it.
	I even have the, I'll have the drive-through operational probably sometime by the end of the year.
	But I was there just working the counter for my son, and I was from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
	And I did six transactions buying silver bullion.
	And that was all I bought.
	Silver bullion.
	There wasn't any gold.
	There were six transactions of different silver bullion buys and probably about $5,000 worth or more.
	But that's just kind of indicative of the steady pace.
	So the retail trade is still selling it more than they're buying it then.
	Yeah, well, the public is selling to me, and then I'm having to figure out how am I going to either get it to the trading house and make a small margin and liquidate it off my books or find a way to keep it on inventory and sell it out slowly.
	It's a very strange position to be in because I love silver.
	I think it's a bargain right now.
	It's hard to always keep it on your books with cash flow, as you know, from small business day, but you can't just continue to accumulate inventory and survive.
	So I have to make that decision, but I think I'm buying.
	I still think I'm buying it cheap.
	And the reason is, is what you mentioned, you know, with the repricing of everything, I don't think that we've factored in the true destruction of the dollar.
	The dollar's lost 40% of its purchasing price compared to gold in the last year alone.
	Yeah, that's right.
	It's amazing.
	Just in the last 12 months.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And silver went from, What was it last year, David, about $29 an ounce at this time, somewhere in there?
	And now we're at $44 an ounce and climbing.
	I think that's in direct correlation to the loss of purchasing power in the dollar and where we're headed with the repricing of commodities.
	So, yeah, it's eventually.
	And I think there was an article up on Zero Hedge about the FOMO.
	I mean, I think a lot of people are going to look back and think this was the time, and they ended up not being able to buy.
	Unfortunately, I think silver is going to surprise everyone because it's been lying in wait for 45 years.
	And everybody's been waiting for silver to do its thing since 1980.
	And you mentioned earlier, adjusted for inflation.
	You're absolutely right.
	So in 1979, gold went early into 79 into 80, gold went to over $800 an ounce.
	So it went from $35 an ounce in 1971 to over $800 an ounce in the end of 1979.
	And that was based off of, it seemed to be that the Fed and the Treasury's goal of whip inflation now and all the rest of that didn't happen.
	And people were just, and gold doubled from the first quarter of 79 all the way down to the end.
	And then there was some easing.
	You know, Paul Volcker raised interest rates to the teens, and we've discussed this many times.
	So there was a contraction in the money supply, and eventually there was an easing of perceived inflation.
	So silver took, you know, went down from $52 an ounce down to, gosh, you know, almost nothing.
	And then gold went from $800 an ounce down to about $300.
	So you're right.
	Pricing for inflation, if you looked at $800 an ounce gold in 79, we just crossed that line.
	So that priced into inflation, $35, I think $3,600 an ounce or something like that is about the adjusted for inflation mark of where we were in 79 with $800 an ounce gold.
	But we've not even gotten close with silver.
	If I said it many times, you know, $52 an ounce in 80 was like $300 today in purchasing power.
	That's an estimation.
	So I think we got a lot of room to run.
	And all commodities, I mean, look at what's happening with platinum, palladium.
	Palladium is up, I think, 500% over the past many, like five years, I think.
	What's anything that's real, actually?
	I got Mr. Anything that's real.
	Yeah, Mr. Prom 1011 says silver is up $5 per ounce just in September.
	And he says, Thank you, Tony.
	So appreciate that.
	And again, we go back and we look at the inflation that was happening in the 70s.
	You mentioned it, you know, the whip inflation now, the little win buttons that Gerald Ford wanted people to put on their lapels.
	What are we supposed to do to stop inflation, right?
	They didn't know what to do to stop inflation.
	I'll get right on it, Mr. Ford.
	Yeah, that's right.
	I mean, they would really just talk to us as if we were children.
	It's the same administration that came out with a this is your brain on drugs thing, you know, the egg in a frying pan.
	It's like they really do think that we're children, and maybe they're right.
	I don't know, but I say no to inflation, David.
	Yeah, that's right.
	So when you go in, it's like, no, I can't afford that.
	None for me, thanks.
	Yeah.
	I never figured out what my responsibility in inflation was.
	I knew what his was, but I didn't know what mine was.
	Yeah, it's pretty crazy.
	That really is the crux of the matter: the fiat currency.
	Once you've untethered from value, and you mentioned earlier, you know, we've talked about the petro dollar.
	We had a seemingly gold-backed dollar until 1971.
	It wasn't legal for you to own gold.
	Gerald Ford made that legal, I think, in December of 1974.
	You could finally own gold again legally in this country.
	So we really didn't have the dollar had the perceived backing of something.
	And we went off the petrodollar pretty much officially last year.
	And you've seen the world start moving away from using that, pricing it into energy.
	So what's left, I think, is the stable coin models that we discussed.
	And I don't know how that's going to work out for the dollar or what's going to go on.
	But in the meantime, everything's getting repriced.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	Speaking of that, we got a couple of comments here.
	Three Little Birds says, ask you, Tony, who will buy gold or silver when it becomes so highly valued?
	I think you'll be buying things with gold and silver.
	I think is what you'll be doing.
	Right.
	Well, it's kind of like I'm sorry.
	Go back and look at the stories about the Weimar Republic, you know, when the paper money became worthless and people were using wheelbearers full of it.
	One guy became incredibly wealthy because early on he got out of the currency and got into gold, and then he could basically buy whatever he wanted to on the cheap.
	Right.
	Well, the hardest money wins.
	And there's stories about the Weimar Republic, the meltdown, where somebody bought a hotel for a $20 gold piece.
	Because the current priced in the currency, and this gets complicated.
	If you've priced in your debt models based off of currency, say you have a promissory note, you have a mortgage, that's priced into the currency at the time.
	It's one of the reasons why you had William Jennings Bryan at the end of the 19th century with the cross of gold speech, the currency had become so hard.
	Like the United States was deflationary, it was harder and harder for the farmers to get liquid and pay off their notes.
	And so that's why they called for free silver.
	The whole allegory of the Wizard of Oz is all about that with the Yellow Brick Road.
	And Dorothy's slippers were originally silver.
	She tapped him to go back home and all the rest of that.
	There's an allegory there.
	But that was the inverse.
	That was the opposite problem.
	We had a currency that was so rigid and hard and like it was deflationary that it was harder to get out of debt.
	Now, if you free up capital for a while, it looks pretty good.
	Like, oh, you can pay off debt a lot easier, but then you start, everything gets repriced.
	And so, you know, an ounce of gold will go a lot farther.
	And you talk about that in relation to what's known as Gresham's Law.
	And I don't want to get too technical because I don't think I'm the guy to explain it.
	But Gresham's Law simply states that when bad money enters a system, then good money goes into hiding.
	And so I always, you know, I try to figure out what's the end game of Gresham's Law.
	Well, how does it end up?
	Well, good money comes back.
	And that's the, you know, the proper money always reasserts itself.
	Gold always wins.
	If you look at history, gold always comes back.
	Silver comes back.
	And it can be pushed out for a while.
	And I think that period between when they put down the gold and silver rebellion, because I really think that's what it was in 1980.
	As I look back and you realize what happened with the Hunt family, they were deep stated.
	I think they were punished for exposing something that was wrong with the dollar and making silver go up to $52 an ounce.
	And the rest is history with that because silver was nothing throughout the 80s and the 1990s.
	Warren Buffett, for a while, seemingly cornered the silver market, but nothing really happened.
	That's why he called it a pet rock.
	He said gold was like a pet rock or it didn't do anything and it just sits there.
	Well, that's the whole point.
	It's supposed to sit there.
	It's supposed to house value.
	It's supposed to be a monetary thing.
	Whereas the dollar, again, the dollar is with fiat currency loses purchasing power.
	So we had that interim period between the 80s and 90s and early 2000s where it looked like fiat currency at least stabilized enough.
	But that's all $300 an ounce gold, David, in 2003.
	And I remember that because I was going into Iraq.
	I bought my first gold coins.
	And I remember the dealer that I called put me in some, I didn't know what I was doing.
	So he put me in numismatic collectibles that I never could get any value out of.
	But if I just bought gold bullion, I'd have been way, way up.
	I wish I'd had that.
	If I invested $3,000 in 2003, I could have got 10 ounces of gold.
	I'd be looking a lot better right now.
	Well, you know, when you talk about these different scenarios, one of the scenarios is like the Weimar Republic, where the entire financial system collapses and the currency collapses and that type of thing.
	And that's where you pay for it, where you buy the hotel for a $20 gold piece type of thing.
	But then you also have what happened in the 70s and 80s where because of bad government policy, a number of different ways inflation got out of hand.
	And eventually, when they got that under control, then gold came back down for a while.
	But I think we're looking at something that is more like the Weimar scenario.
	In this fourth turning, these institutions, everything is being changed.
	The international financial system is being re-engineered.
	All these different things are happening.
	So I think when you look at exploding debt in the West and you look, you know, that's looking Weimar-like.
	And then you've got the desire by the Russians and the Chinese to completely change the financial system.
	This is something unlike what we have seen before.
	And we could very well be pushed into a worldwide depression, especially with Trump's capricious and arbitrary tariffs that are happening out there.
	So, you know, that's really, I think, more the scenario that we're looking at.
	And as you point out, Tony, when you have a collapse of that order, people are looking for real money for real for hard money for real assets.
	And it falls back to that.
	And the fiat currency becomes like Confederate dollars.
	So I think maybe that's the answer.
	That's exactly right.
	That's the one that I would give.
	And history shows us, you know, it's that old maxim of the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.
	And I mentioned earlier about where we were in 1945, especially post-World War II, how much wealth that the United States held and the rules that it was able to make because of that.
	And that's dissipated and flowed out.
	And because of our monetary policy, you look at places, I mean, Canada, again, that's another, they fall into that fiat trap.
	Well, we've got all this currency and we've got a central bank.
	Well, so what?
	You know, do you have assets to back it up?
	And that's the rest of the world is moving away and has been moving away rapidly.
	And I think when I was on last week and I was pointing out that the Hong Kong gold depository, I thought that was big news.
	It didn't get a lot of play, but next week, Bloomberg's running a story on China leveraging the Shanghai Gold Exchange and Hong Kong to usher in a new commodity pricing system.
	And I think that's really important to watch as the outflows continue to happen in these, especially the BRICS nations accumulate more and more monetary metal.
	And they're doing that again.
	The centers have been London and New York, but there's been some scandals involved in that.
	A lot of people wanted to get their money out of New York as well as out of London and some difficulty in getting that.
	So I think China sees an opportunity there.
	Well, they're right.
	And the backbone of all of this is trust.
	And I believe the West has eroded its trust, and especially the dollar system and the weaponization of the dollar.
	It's mismanaged on purpose.
	I was reading an old book by Jim Mars on the plane yesterday.
	I was coming out here to LA, and it was rule by secrecy.
	And it talked about James Forrestal, that famous quote from James Forrestal, who was, I think, murdered, pushed out of a window at Bethesda Naval Hospital for his views.
	He was the first Secretary of Defense under Truman.
	But he had that famous quote.
	He said, if they were just stupid, then every once in a while they'd err in our favor.
	He's talking about the ruling elite.
	And he says, they never do.
	That's how you know that it's pretty brilliant.
	It's a plan.
	Except for the controlled demolition of the dollar, we have to really ask the question in the controlled demolition of this current monetary system, su bono, who benefits?
	Really, who benefits?
	Because we're watching the destruction of our monetary system in real time.
	And the vacuum that's going to leave, you just look at places like China, which I don't think is a good thing.
	That's right.
	Absolutely.
	Well, we've always talked about the economic system and everything.
	Let me get your take on war because we had.
	Real quickly, before we leave the economic system, we've had a comment from Three Little Birds who wants to know: Tony, do you think the future could hold two separate economies?
	Do I think the future would have two separate economies?
	Yes, that is a question.
	Financial systems.
	Their example is a metals-based one and an energy-based one.
	But, you know, will there be two separate ways of doing business?
	You're like the established method and then something other than that, say, you know, gold, silver.
	I think that's entirely possible.
	It's going to take a while.
	Nothing like this happens rapidly.
	Well, maybe it's more gradually than suddenly, probably.
	But I don't think people are exactly ready for that yet.
	But I think there will be different ways to conduct business in parallel economies that we discussed for many years, especially with decentralized tokens through crypto and then things like gold and silver that are physical in the real world that you can actually trade and hold in your hand.
	I think that will make a that will make parallel economies.
	I think naturally people want to have the best money.
	And if the if the money from the established order is constantly in flux or in danger, or you've got to deal with social credit scores or anything like that, you're going to naturally gravitate towards something that's outside of that.
	It may not happen in a day, but it will happen.
	I think that's a natural human condition.
	History shows us that.
	You can't debase your way out of economic downturns.
	The Romans learned that many times, by the way, they did it more than once.
	We've had the coin clipping and other things when debasing the currency and then bringing it back.
	We always see that nations rise on sound money.
	Empires rise on sound money and economic nationalism, and they decline on fiat currency and free trade.
	Yes.
	And I think once you get this dominant fiat currency out of the way, you're going to have the market trying a lot of different things, many of them probably simultaneously, until they settle on maybe something or one system.
	But I wanted to ask you about war because war is always a part of these fourth turnings.
	It begins with financial issues, then they take us to war, as Gerald Slunty said.
	And we've had Trump do a complete 180 at the UN.
	Now he's all in for Ukraine.
	They're going to take back all their land and maybe even some of Russia, he says.
	What do you think is happening with us?
	And it wasn't even, I think, a full 24 hours before we have Denmark saying, well, we've got drones at our airports again.
	This has got to be the Russians.
	Let's go to war.
	What do you think?
	They're going to take us to war pretty quickly.
	I think this is the most volatile situation that the world has been in since 1962, since the Cuban Missile Crisis, honestly.
	And it's a sad thing to watch if you followed history or geopolitics like I have and been interested in it and been part of the instrument of failed foreign policy.
	I was a tiny cog in that machine as a young man, watching some disastrous decisions unfold.
	This is really unnerving.
	And I've warned against it for a long time, and it seems to kind of go away and then it'll come back.
	The dressing down of Zelensky at the White House, I wondered how much of that was theater because it seemed like, oh, we're making a move here.
	We're going to finally put this thing to bed, which was, you know, the established order wants that war.
	They want NATO and Russia locked in some sort of kinetic conflict.
	It's ideological reasons, it's territorial reasons, it's financial reasons.
	All of that's baked into that.
	And that's something that I thought was so myopic.
	I think it's psychotic at the same time.
	And they're focusing on one or two things.
	But the wider picture is that the West is sleepwalking into a cataclysm.
	You look at somebody like Zelensky.
	He said earlier, I think in the last couple of days, he said that Russia either makes peace or they make bomb shelters.
	That's the kind of rhetoric of a madman.
	Yeah, it is.
	And yet we're seeing that from European countries now.
	We've seen it from Poland.
	You're seeing it now from Denmark.
	They're all jumping into this, and you got the Germans just calmly saying, well, we're going to have to be able to take care of a couple of thousand casualties a day here in our hospitals.
	That's what's coming in.
	And they're setting up their military.
	They're looking how they're going to get a larger army, all these different things.
	They're just doing it as kind of a matter of fact.
	It'sn't like there's not any panic about it.
	It's just like, well, this is what we're going to do now.
	And they're kind of telling everybody what they're going to do.
	And for what?
	Yeah.
	What is the point here?
	What would be the point of the sacrifice other than some sort of ritualistic Luciferian agenda?
	I mean, I don't see the point here.
	What is the point that they're trying to make?
	What is the security threat to Europe by Russia if you leave it alone?
	I mean, I don't really understand.
	Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we've done everything to expand NATO, to interfere with even like you look at the, what was it, 2014, we had the CIA-backed coup in Ukraine.
	The democratically elected leader fled to Russia.
	The Orange Revolution in 2007.
	We've done everything to get us to this point is really on the West.
	Russia, I'm not a Russophile.
	I don't pretend to think that Vladimir Putin's a great guy or that he's a sane actor, but at the same time, we just look psychotic and schizophrenic.
	Well, it's NATO.
	And we've broken our promise.
	NATO was set up to fight Russia.
	When the Soviet Union collapses, it's like, oh, now what do we do, right?
	And we've had in the past.
	Yeah, what's the Warsaw Pact?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, exactly.
	In the past, we've had NATO do Operation Gladio, where they staged terrorist attacks, kidnapped Prime Minister, killed him, all that type of thing.
	These are people who are satanic and insane.
	They have operated literally as terrorists in Italy and in Germany for their political agenda.
	And these are the people who are looking to do anything that they can in order to preserve this institution.
	Mark Ruda, who tried to destroy all farming in the Netherlands, gets booted out.
	And where do they put him?
	As head of NATO, because he's their kind of guy.
	It's almost funny, except that it's so serious because they're trying to drag us.
	They're determined to drag us into World War III, no matter how flimsy the excuse.
	I mean, we'd be drugged into World War III over some drones harassing an airport.
	I mean, that sounds like getting drug into a World War because some archduke was assassinated somewhere in a place that we've never heard of before.
	Or some place you've never heard of that makes no sense.
	You run into people.
	I remember I was in Washington, D.C. in 2014, and I went up there to speak at an event for Congressman Ralph Paul at the Capitol Grill.
	And before that, they had a little luncheon, and somebody, some kid from the Heritage Foundation, was this was, again, right on the heels of the Ron Paul Revolution.
	And there was a lot of libertarian thought that was entering into conservatism, which I thought was a great thing.
	And I was one of those people.
	And they said, we've got to instruct people about even things like World War I. World War I was worth fighting.
	And it was the reason why we fought it.
	And I remember looking at this luncheon, and I'm like, am I on a different planet?
	Can you explain to me what that was?
	I mean, modern historians really can't say why we fought this, you know, Pat Buchanan called it the Great Civil War of the West, which was World War I and II.
	Just this bloodletting.
	Other than some ritualistic bankers' wars, what was the security measure?
	What was the threat here other than the wealth and control of the very few?
	Yeah, I agree.
	Yeah, one of my favorite movies, the first half of it, is Sergeant York.
	They gaslight him and get him to go full in this war.
	It's like, no, you're right the first time.
	Don't let them trick you.
	War is when they tell us who to fight.
	Revolutions when we figure it out for ourselves.
	So you've got a program that's coming up after this show, don't you?
	Are you doing that?
	I know you're in California.
	You're still going to do today's show?
	I'm still going to do today's show live from the green room here in Thousand Oaks.
	I'm going to do the Arderburn Radio transmission.
	So yeah, we'll be live on Rumble and the American Unplug channel and live on my ex at Tony Arterburn.
	And I can't believe I still have a YouTube.
	Me and Jimmy Kim, we both have YouTube now.
	I'll be over at Tony Arterburn.
	How about YouTube?
	Did they never take you off?
	They just missed it or something, the sensors?
	Well, I've had other channels gone, but this time I just used my name.
	Just said, I'm Tony Arterburn at Tony Arterburn.
	We'll see how long they take to figure out that's me over there.
	Maybe you got on there after Linda left.
	She was the Yakarino or whatever.
	Susanna.
	She forgot about me.
	Was that Susan Wojiki?
	Yeah, that's right.
	Linda Yakarina.
	She was at X. But well, that's great.
	So you're going to be on X and YouTube right after this program, right?
	During the live broadcast.
	Yes, sir.
	12 Eastern, 11 a.m. Central Time will be live.
	So come join us over there.
	And I still want to reiterate, too, on DavidKnight.gold.
	If anybody's, your listeners, there's a special that I'm running.
	It's just for David Knight listeners and my listeners.
	We've got some in-house silver deals, and it's a hodgepodge of stuff.
	Like I said yesterday, we're buying a lot of silver.
	So take advantage of that.
	If there's in-house pricing, we can beat a lot of the major retailers right now and give you a pass-on a great deal.
	Can't promise exactly melt on everything, but we can get really close to spot on some items.
	And it could be, you know, 10-ounce coins, five-ounce bars, and pre-1965 U.S. silver.
	But I'd even hate to sell it, honestly.
	I love selling it.
	Make a little bit, but I'm trying to stockpile right now because I think that price is going to keep moving because the dollar, you know, the saying goes: gold and silver, and you know, have no top because fiat has no bottom.
	That's a good saying, and very true.
	Thank you so much for joining us, Tony.
	Really do appreciate it.
	Again, folks, go to davidknight.gold.
	I'll take you to Tony's WiseWolf Gold.
	Let him know that you came through us.
	Thank you so much, Tony.
	Thank you for your support.
	All right, folks.
	And I also want to remind you: as we're talking about War and Peace, Joe Salenti's Occupy Peace is coming up this weekend.
	You can go to occupypeace.com and find out information about where that is.
	Kingston, New York is a great place.
	That's where Guard and I met in person when I was there back in 2021, four years ago.
	And it's a great event.
	I would highly recommend it.
	And we need to, you know, you can enjoy yourself.
	If you're not too far away, you can enjoy yourself in a nice environment there and show your support for peace at the same time.
	We're going to take a quick break and we will be right back.
	Stay with us.
	Here's a little song I wrote.
	You might want to hear it in your part.
	You'll owe nothing and be happy.
	Ain't got no cash, ain't got no car, but 24 booster shots in your arm.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy.
	You can't even buy in the store because of your low social credit score.
	Oh, nothing.
	Be happy, you will own nothing, and be happy.
	Be happy and eat some bugs.
	Defending the American Dream.
	You're listening to the David Knight Show.
	Hear news now at APSradionews.com or get the APS Radio app and never miss another story.
	Welcome back to the show.
	We got a lot of comments.
	S.A. Miller, 123.
	They only claim there are two sides in order to keep you divided.
	Trump was the Democrat place on the Republican ticket to blur the lines and pull the right towards the left.
	Boy, he certainly has done that, hasn't he?
	He's done a great job.
	Pipe Piper from New York.
	I'm of the opinion, well, technically, there are only two sides.
	There's right and there's wrong, but dividing them along political party lines is.
	I mean, they're two sides of the same coin, I guess.
	KWD68, I had a MAGA tell me yesterday that the title issue for Trump is to draw out the pharmaceutical companies.
	Their IQ drops daily.
	IS 4D.
	Pay no attention to Epstein.
	Yeah, let's talk about this.
	Yeah.
	Again, how could you possibly believe that?
	And why would we not look for something that has gone up at the same time and exploded at the same time that the autism has exploded?
	It's clearly the vaccines.
	And even RFK Jr. said that once upon a time, but now he's being pulled back by Trump.
	Doug Duh 007, people demand health care for all.
	And when Convid came around, suddenly the unvaccinated were deemed unfit to receive medical care, even when in an emergency.
	That's right.
	They suddenly realize, wait a minute, they're...
	Yeah, when I...
	You can't provide care for everyone.
	Yeah, well, look at these people like Kimmel, you know, his comment about let them die if they're not vaccinated.
	And you look at Colbert and his dancing vaccine, hypodermic needles.
	And of course, they did it cartoon-wise, and then they did an even more disgusting one later where they had human dancers and they had guys with hairy legs like they were dancing like they were rockets or something.
	It made me want to vomit on every level.
	Not only are you trying to push people to die, but you're doing it with your LGBT optics.
	It's just disgusting.
	Yeah, it's amazing how much humor has become.
	Ha ha, look, we're doing something kind of gay.
	Isn't it gay?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it is.
	Lieutenant Oracle, Florida is going to investigate if ivermectin can be used to treat cancer, but they still haven't made it over the counter.
	Well.
	Yes, I had a person point out that here in Tennessee, thanks to the great work of Mr. Senator Nicely, right Nicely, who unfortunately passed away.
	I missed that for several months, so I didn't go back and cover that.
	But we owe a great debt of gratitude to him for things that he did in Tennessee here.
	But he got that where it was purchasable over the counter, but that's not the case everywhere.
	When I was talking about it being cheap, people using that for cancer treatment, along with a keto diet and vitamin C and dravenously, they were using a couple of anti-parasitics, ivermectin and fembendazole.
	And those you can buy at the veterinary form of it.
	And I guess the issue is, do they relax the standards for veterinary medicines?
	Do they relax the standards for pet food, for example?
	I kind of think they do.
	Certainly for the food.
	I don't know.
	That's kind of, you know, you could eat dog food and dog biscuits or whatever, but, you know, it's the thought of it.
	And the reality is that they may have relaxed standards for those things as well.
	I don't know.
	Citizen of America.
	I thought he was going to revalue what little gold we had in Fort Knox, but apparently we just have a bunch of IOUs written on cocktail napkins and candy wrappers.
	Isn't it amazing?
	We should go through and do a compilation of all of the crazy nonsense that Trump has thrown at us just within nine months.
	You know, we're going to take over Greenland.
	We're going to go to war with Canada or whatever.
	It's just make him the 51st state.
	We're going to go to Fort Knox and look to see if the gold is there.
	It's just been one theatrical professional wrestling nonsense piece of nonsense after the other.
	It's really what it is.
	It's just WWE wrestling.
	You know, he learned how to get viewership with WWE, and that's the way he's running his presidency.
	Deer Scheimer, easy, 5K gold by 2030.
	Could explode to 10K, but it's not the bet.
	KWD 68 silver has to hit $200 an ounce to be adjusted for 1980 high with inflation.
	It could happen even without the Hunt brothers.
	Guard Gold Smith.
	I remember my mom mentioning that her dad didn't turn in his gold under FDR.
	The anti-authoritarian thread runs through generations, I think.
	Oh, it does.
	Yeah, it does.
	I've seen that.
	I've seen it myself.
	Give me your gold.
	I don't think I will.
	The collectibles are less reliable than actual metal.
	I found out my own mistake years ago because in tough economic times, people won't bid as high for the collectible despite the metal in it.
	Yeah.
	That's right.
	Citizen Americaca, Rambo 08.
	Old men start it, young men fight it, nobody wins.
	Everybody in the middle dies, and nobody tells the truth.
	That's right.
	And Guard Goldsmith again says, the Wolf Pack is awesome.
	And of course, Wolf Pack is what Tony Artiburn has set up.
	You can go to DavidKnight.gold to get yourself some gold.
	Or silver Wolf Pack is a monthly subscription.
	He will send it to you.
	And you've got multiple different tiers there.
	And you can set up on a monthly basis, or you can just do it at a one-time thing.
	We've had people send some to us.
	As a matter of fact, I really do appreciate that.
	It's a great way to save because if you putting money in a savings account in a bank is a guaranteed loser because of inflation and because they don't even pretend to pay interest anymore on it.
	Even if they were to pay interest, it wouldn't come close to the inflation.
	So yeah, you've got to, if you want to save, you want to save in precious metals.
	It's always funny when you'll see something like a high-yield savings account, 2%.
	Oh, yeah, high yield.
	I bet.
	I'm going to get rich.
	When inflation is several times that.
	Well, as we're talking about liars, somebody here is lying about Tom Hohmann because you have stories coming out saying that there was an investigation into him that was shut down.
	And they said as part of that investigation that he had accepted $50,000 cash.
	He was still going to cash.
	I mean, he could have gotten $50,000 in gold.
	That would only be a few ounces, right?
	Also, I mean, $50,000, that's not even that much anymore.
	What can you...
	But anyway, he gets $50,000 in a grocery bag given to him by some people who said that they wanted him to approve contracts when he became head of whatever he's going to become head of.
	He's...
	I guess it's not just ICE, but it's anyway, the Border Patrol, I guess, is what it is.
	And so people are asking, when is that going to be, it's going to be investigated?
	And so you have Caroline Lovitt, the press secretary for the White House, said that he never took the $50,000.
	So somebody is lying.
	And the question is, who?
	There's no way that we can tell because everybody who's weighing in on this, whether it's the New York Times or their sources or whether it's Susan Lovitt at the White House, they have all lied repeatedly about everything.
	That's how you know that they're talking.
	Their lips are moving.
	You know, they're lying.
	So he said, they found zero evidence of illegal activity or criminal wrongdoings, he said.
	So I don't think that this is going to necessarily die.
	We'll have to see what happens with it.
	But let's take a look at the war because a lot of people are lying about the war as well.
	There was an interesting article on anti-war asking, what does Trump want from Venezuela?
	What do they have to do to get him to not attack their country?
	And it reminds me very much of what people were saying about the invasion of Panama under George H.W. Bush when you had loudspeakers coming in telling everybody, get out of the area.
	We're going to be destroying this area.
	And it's like, what area are they talking about?
	You know, such a small country and city that you could basically hear this everywhere.
	So it's like, we still don't know where they're going to be attacking or why.
	We have no idea.
	Reporting has recently emerged that the U.S. is considering direct strikes on Venezuela that could increase volatility in the region and the risk of war.
	Well, I would say that direct strikes are war.
	Under the pretext of disrupting the flow of drugs in the U.S. by Venezuelan drug cartels, the U.S. has militarized the waters off the coast of Venezuela, flooding them with Aegis-guided missile destroyers, a nuclear-powered fast-track submarine, P-8 spy planes, F-35 fighter jets.
	And of course, American forces have blown up several boats now.
	I think the count is three of them, but I'm starting to lose count of how many people, how many boats he has killed and summarily executed the people.
	The Trump administration has yet to offer evidence for its claim.
	They have neither publicly identified who the 11 people who were killed by the boat were, nor identified the drugs that they were supposedly carrying.
	And Congress has not been briefed, and Congress hasn't asked to be briefed.
	They don't even care about this.
	Marco Rubio said the boat was probably headed to Trinidad or some other country in the Caribbean.
	Well, Trump said it was bound for the U.S., and that's why they destroyed it, because it was in defense of the U.S. It turns out, however, that it was headed back to Venezuela.
	U.S. officials familiar with the operation have now told the New York Times that having spotted the military aircraft stalking it, the boat had already altered its course and appeared to have turned around before the attack began.
	The 29-second video that Trump posted on social media spliced together several clips, just like the Epstein tape, but edited out the boat turning around.
	Despite the lack of imminent threat, the aircraft, either an attack helicopter or an MQ-9 Reaper drone, repeatedly hit the vessel before it sank.
	So, again, you know, if he's editing the Epstein tape, if he's editing this extrajudicial killing of his, that's worse than what he accused 60 Minutes of doing.
	Remember, he accused them because they had, you know, they filmed a long interview with Lala Harris, and they aired part of it on 60 Minutes, and they took another part of it and used it for the trailer.
	And he goes, so you're editing this stuff.
	It's like, yeah, that's the way it's done.
	Everybody does it that way.
	But it didn't substantially change anything.
	And no matter how they edited this thing, they could never make her look like she had a brain and she lost the election.
	And yet here he is, his administration is editing the Epstein tape.
	And we have the metadata that shows that that's the case.
	And editing this video that he put out boasting about how he killed people without due process.
	The Trump administration has claimed the right to supplant the National Guard and law enforcement with a military and lethal force on the grounds that the drug cartels are terrorist organizations who pose a threat to the national security of the U.S. because the drugs they bring into the U.S. kill Americans.
	Rubio has insisted that the speed boat was, quote, an immediate threat to the United States, except that it had turned around.
	And so it wasn't.
	As a matter of fact, even though he says it's an imminent threat, he admits that it was on its way to some other nation in the Caribbean.
	Setting aside the legitimacy of the terrorist justification, if the boat had already turned around, the immediate threat argument is blown out of the water.
	If someone is retreating, where is the imminent threat?
	said Rear Admiral Donald Guter, a retired top judge advocate general for the Navy from 2000 to 2002.
	He said, where is the self-defense?
	They're gone if they ever existed, which I don't think they did.
	Another Rear Admiral, James McPherson, who is also a top judge advocate general, he was for the Navy from 2004 to 2006, added, if, in fact, you can fashion a legal argument that says these people were getting ready to attack the U.S. through the introduction of cocaine or whatever, if they turned back, then the threat is gone away.
	The Trump administration is considering going further, however.
	They're not turning back.
	And more significant, with more strikes on Venezuela.
	The strikes could take the form of either shooting down a Venezuelan military aircraft or bombing Venezuelan military airfields, which, by the way, I will interject, they could come into direct conflict with Russian personnel who are still running their air defense installations that are there.
	Such action could be taken in two situations.
	If Venezuela threatens U.S. forces off of its coast, or if Venezuelan President Maduro does not enhance his administration's efforts against drug cartels, which is why you have anti-war saying, so what does Trump want them to do?
	They point out that in terms of enhancing their efforts against drug cartels, that the Venezuelans' collaboration in the fight against the drug war, so-called, and drug trafficking, has been recognized as among the best in South America, according to former executive director of the UN Office for Drugs.
	And remember, the drug war is a UN war.
	They were the ones who came up with this stuff.
	They were the ones who created the four schedules.
	They were the ones who were complaining the loudest when California legalized marijuana, medical marijuana.
	The UN was like, you can't do that.
	And that, along with the interviews I was doing with law enforcement against prohibition, got me, that's when I understood that the war on drugs was not something that Richard Nixon created.
	He took the credit for it, but it was something that was handed to him by the UN.
	He was pushing a UN agenda.
	Just like the Agenda 2030 or something like that, it's reprehensible.
	Why would we push a UN agenda for so long, for 50 years?
	Well, it's just like the climate change agenda.
	Maduro had ordered the more than doubling of Venezuelan forces to monitor drug trafficking.
	In addition to the 10,000 troops already deployed, the Venezuelan military is ordering an additional 15,000 to, quote, determine and verify the absence of illicit crops and to block this area also of possible drug trafficking.
	So of all the Central and South American countries, they have arguably done more than anybody else to stop the drug trade.
	And there is no fentanyl that's being manufactured there or transiting and coming from Venezuela.
	So everything that the Trump administration is telling us about this is a lie.
	That's why I say when you look at the Tom Holman thing and the bag of cash, is that true?
	The denials, are they true, or is that another bold-faced lie?
	What makes the question of what Venezuela is supposed to do to appease Trump is made more difficult in that there is nothing that Venezuela can do.
	The U.S. is demanding that Venezuela make a course correction to correct a problem that does not exist.
	Again, when you look at the U.N.'s World Drug Report this year, they say that Venezuela, quote, has consolidated its status as a territory free from the cultivation of coca leaves, cannabis, and similar crops, unquote.
	They continue by saying only 55% of Colombian drugs transit through Venezuela.
	The UN report says it does not mention Venezuela even once as a corridor for the international drug trade.
	So the Trump administration has offered no evidence that the destroyed speedboat was carrying drugs or drug smuggling or that it was on its way to American shores.
	The Maduro administration has already addressed the American demands and has increased its efforts against the drug growing and trafficking that was never a problem in the first place.
	Nevertheless, the U.S., Trump, is threatening further military strikes on Venezuela, raising the hard-to-answer question of what is Venezuela supposed to do?
	Well, maybe the only thing they could do to head this off would be to turn over the oilfields to Trump, because I think that's what he's after.
	He's not after the cocoa, however they grow it fields.
	We were after the poppy fields in Afghanistan, and we used that to increase the supply of opioids that were there.
	But the only thing they could do is just hand over the oil to him.
	And as I said earlier, this Duterte, who is in the International Criminal Court, he killed, they're only coming after him for slightly more people than Trump has killed already in these boat attacks.
	And yet, that's only a subset of the people that were actually killed by Duterte in this war on drugs stuff.
	It truly is insane.
	We look at the war of drugs.
	They estimated more than 30,000 people.
	And this is an estimate from the prosecutors.
	They just have hard evidence for 76 of those killings and arrested back in March.
	A proposed war authorization could allow Trump to target 60-plus countries.
	I mentioned this earlier.
	I said, this is how powerful these cartels that were created by the war on drugs is how powerful they have become.
	They've gotten into every kind of criminal enterprise, and they've gotten into pretty much every country.
	And now you have an insanely broad draft authorization for the use of military force, AUMF, could provide the president with wide latitude to go after supposed narco-terrorists.
	They have combined the failed war on terror with the failed war on drugs to come up with narco-terrorists.
	Well, you know, two negatives make a positive.
	Well, the question is, you know, when you look at this war stuff, why is Trump pushing for control of Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan?
	Is he trying to restart the Afghanistan war as well?
	I wouldn't be surprised.
	So the U.S. war on drugs has escalated rapidly over the last month with Venezuela and so forth.
	How far Washington should go in its new counter-narcotics campaign has been the source of controversy within the Trump administration.
	The DEA proposed the use of the U.S. military to attack cartels within Mexican territory during a White House meeting earlier this year.
	Remember that?
	Officials from the Defense Department and other agencies reportedly objected, in part, because the executive branch lacked sufficient legal authorization to do so.
	Well, sufficient legal authorization is something that has never stopped Trump so far.
	Why would that stop him?
	And it looks like they're going to turn around for that.
	But they may try to have a little bit of legal cover.
	This is coming from Representative Corey Mills in Florida.
	A proposal reportedly brought forth by him for a new authorization for the use of military force to be aimed at, quote, narco-terrorists began circulating around Washington last week.
	Just as a backup, if you remember, the authorization for the use of military force legislation was passed in response to the inside attack of 9-11.
	laid the groundwork for the so-called global war on terror that became the basis for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
	Because it has extremely broad language, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force has since been used to justify military intervention.
	Military attacks, folks, is what we're talking about.
	Not intervention.
	We're not trying to help somebody get off of drugs.
	We're doing a drug intervention with bombs.
	So they've used it to justify military attacks in 22 countries already.
	And now that we've abandoned the Constitution, this is how we do wars now.
	We give an authorization for the use of military force on a broad category.
	We go to war with a tactic, terror.
	We go to war with drugs, inanimate objects.
	We even confiscate property, saying that the property has violated their rules about drugs.
	We don't charge the person.
	We just steal their property.
	So now, Corey Mills out of Florida wants to expand this and make it even broader.
	His new authorization for the use of military force is they put a sunset law on it.
	You know that something is bad when they say, well, we'll only try for five years.
	They know how bad and overreaching it is.
	And that's just kind of a pullback.
	It's a promise.
	We could get rid of it in five years.
	And you know what will happen?
	They put it out five years because then people get used to it.
	And it's a boil the frogs process.
	So after five years, oh yeah, we've had this.
	And look, we're still here.
	So let's reauthorize it again.
	The authorization does not identify specific targets.
	It contains no geographic restrictions either.
	Harvard professor Jack Goldsmith said that the proposal is insanely broad.
	That was his term.
	He said it's essentially an open-ended war authorization against an untold number of countries and organizations and persons that the president could deem to be within its scope.
	This version of the AUMF attributed to Mills would give the president the ability to use, quote, all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons the president determines are designated narco-terrorists, including those who provide financing or support to narco-terrorists.
	So yes, they go through and they talk about how, if you just look at the Sinaloa cartel, it operates in 47 different countries.
	And they said, you know, it's not just the Sinaloa cartel.
	You've got some other ones as well.
	They operate in a lot of countries as well.
	I think this AUMF that is being put around by Mills is specifically targeted towards giving Trump a legal prevarication for going after Venezuela.
	But it is kind of interesting.
	I mean, we look at the places where the Sinaloa Drug Cartel is in.
	It's not just Mexico or Central or South America.
	It's places like Albania, small distant countries like Albania and the Democratic Republic of Congo in Africa.
	France, Germany, we could attack them if we want.
	Ghana, Guinea, Bissau.
	I don't even heard of that country.
	Ireland, Ireland, Sinaloa Cartel, and Ireland.
	You'd think they'd stand out a little bit in Ireland.
	You'd think these guys wouldn't be hard to find there.
	New Zealand.
	It's just everywhere.
	With enough immigration, it's all the same.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Yeah, we're going to homogenize everybody.
	Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, the UK, and Belize, Canada, so forth, right?
	If the proposed AUMF has targeted the Sinaloa cartel alone, it would theoretically authorize U.S. military intervention in at least 42 nations.
	But this is only one of many cartels that have been created by the war on drugs, the U.N.'s war on drugs.
	Taken together, the combined forces of the proposed AUMF and the terrorist designation that have already been assigned to specific cartels could allow the U.S. President to intervene in almost every nation in the continental Americas.
	Taken literally, it could even be abused to justify military intervention within the United States, as the terrorist-designated MS-13 gang was created in Los Angeles and maintains expensive operations throughout the U.S. Again, is that what he's going to do with the military that he's putting in all these left-wing areas?
	That's in California, LA.
	So, yeah, let's use the, let's put the military in LA and let's use them to go after the MS-13 gangs.
	Trump is laying out a framework, and everybody says, oh, he wouldn't be crazy enough to use that.
	I say he is.
	I say he is 100% crazy enough to do the worst case scenarios.
	We have seen it over and over again.
	This is not speculation.
	It's not projection.
	And it's not even a prediction.
	It's history.
	And he could do it again.
	There are still a whole host of constitutional protections against extrajudicial targeting of persons within the U.S., which Trump, of course, will ignore, and MAGA will applaud it.
	This is the best use of our military, J.D. Vance will say, just as he said when they blew up these boats near Venezuela.
	U.S. authorities have long tried to expand their power by blending together the war on drugs and the war on terror, creating the term narco-terrorism.
	The newly proposed AUMF could therefore be applied to many traditional terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Taliban, etc.
	So once you combine the terrorist organizations with the narco-organizations, we basically have authority to give the president authority to go to war against anybody on his own declaration.
	The bill would create justifications for the White House to engage in offensive military activity in more than 60 nations.
	While there's currently no indication that the Congress is eager to take this up, well, I'm pass it, an extremely broad new military force authorization, if it were to become law, would fully merge two of the largest policy failures in U.S. history.
	These two wars on drugs and terror.
	Yeah, it's interesting.
	We've had a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on terror.
	We've had a war in Vietnam.
	We've had a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq.
	Haven't won a single one.
	Whether the war is literal or metaphorical, we have lost all these wars.
	So I guess we should just call it the epic fail.
	So the U.S. sold its longest war with a bodyguard of lies.
	That's the headline from Reason Magazine.
	This is about a new documentary that has come out talking about Afghanistan, asking why the media failed to push back, how money and power kept America's longest war alive long after it was lost.
	I believe that we were in, you know, for the longest time, even after they came in, and again, you know, you have this massive shock and awe, and there's basically no military resistance there.
	But then they tried to occupy the country.
	And you know then that they're going to lose that asymmetric war.
	They always do.
	But why would they occupy Afghanistan?
	I've always believed that it was because of the opium that just accelerated, just exploded.
	The Taliban had been working against opium.
	And when the U.S. military came in, they were guarding the fields.
	That was reported and filmed by, what's the guy, Geraldo Rivera.
	And, you know, I've played that many times.
	But I think also it was an area that was rich in lithium.
	And of course, there's not going to be any government there to tell you that you've got to be careful in terms of how you extract it because lithium extraction is very damaging to the areas environmentally.
	But you just go in there and rip that place to shreds.
	I always felt that we were keeping that prolonged position there because of lithium and opium.
	But now Trump wants to go back.
	Is it because of the lithium and the opium?
	I don't know.
	He wants to restart this, evidently, bullying them over Bagram Air Force Base, which, by the way, that would have been the logical place to evacuate from.
	But instead, they left Bagram Air Force Base and they went to the Commercial Air Force Base, which was vulnerable.
	That's why there were so many problems when they got out.
	Everything about this is absolutely insane.
	And so the new documentary is called The Bodyguard of Lies, a look at the Afghan war and the lessons that the public desperately needs to learn from it.
	Except the public never learns any lessons from any of these things, just like we didn't learn from the COVID war either.
	Rumsfeld admitting that they were not going to be honest with the American people.
	And he reminds us that within six months of the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. had essentially destroyed Al-Qaeda's capacity to attack us.
	But instead of leaving, Washington chose two more decades of occupation, strategic confusion, and widespread corruption.
	So that's the basis of that documentary again, a bodyguard of lies.
	So when you look at how we win these wars, right, you look at the failed war on drugs, the failed war on terrorism, all of the failed wars.
	Is it any wonder that we fail?
	When you look at this, we've had a couple of narratives about drones.
	First, there were the drones that supposedly flew into Poland from Ukraine.
	And yes, those were Russian drones.
	Then we had, following that, in a few days, there was an incident where there were two or three drones that would turn their lights on, turn them off, and fly.
	It was like a harassment campaign.
	Whether it was done by an individual or whether it was done by a nation state, there's no way that anybody can tell.
	They never caught the person that was doing it.
	They simply said, well, this is very professional, so it must be the Russians.
	Well, that has been followed up now, just yesterday, several more drones flying the area.
	And so now Denmark is saying, we want to invoke Article 4 of the NATO Treaty so that we can go to war with Russia.
	But let's take a look at the very first one, the one that Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, tried to use to push us into World War II, World War III.
	This is from RT.
	Headline is, a million-dollar fiasco.
	NATO fires sidewinders at $2,000 drones.
	Western Europe's leaders wave the no-fly zone banners while America shrugs.
	And this is the essence of these wars, any asymmetric war, is exactly this type of thing.
	Why did a handful of foam plastic drones leave NATO in such a panic?
	Because NATO is fear-mongering because they want a war.
	Why is Poland now proposing to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine?
	It's been a long time since the West entertained ideas as reckless as these.
	Foreign Prime Minister Sikorsky broke what has been a useful tradition of keeping quiet when he suggested that NATO should impose a no-fly zone.
	The last time we heard this nonsense was at the very start of the Russian-Ukraine war, where Zelensky demanded that NATO shoot down every Russian missile and aircraft over Ukraine.
	Estonia cheered him on, but NATO leaders dismissed it.
	They knew then what should be obvious now.
	A no-fly zone would mean war with Russia, which, folks, is exactly what they want and what they've been pushing for since the 1990s.
	No one in the alliance dared risk it in 2022.
	So why bring it up again?
	They point out its political theater.
	The trigger was an incident in which a group of UAVs entered Polish airspace.
	Western European politicians seized on the episode, trying to extract maximum political mileage.
	But decisive action is the last thing on their minds.
	The incident revealed just how unprepared NATO is for modern warfare.
	You know, Trump insulted Putin, trying to shame him into coming to the table.
	Perhaps that's the most charitable interpretation of what he had to say at the UN.
	But he said, oh, they should have won this in a couple of days.
	Well, you should talk when you look at the way NATO handled this supposed invasion of small drones.
	19 unarmed decoy drones that had no cameras and no remote control.
	These things are just on autopilot.
	They crossed the Polish skies.
	Their sole purpose had been to commit suicide against air defenses.
	They were just there as decoys before any real strike.
	NATO managed to shoot down only four.
	These things, they're not flying them.
	They don't have any evasive maneuvers, no electronic countermeasures, nothing.
	And they were still only able to shoot down four of them.
	The rest of them wandered across Poland unhindered, some traveling nearly 500 kilometers before running out of fuel and falling from the sky.
	That's about 300 miles.
	In their panic, NATO scrambled F-35 fighters armed with Sidewinder missiles.
	Each one of these missiles costing $470,000.
	The price of a single decoy drone, no more than $3,000.
	To bring down a handful of foam contraptions worth between $8,000 and $12,000, NATO spent close to $1.9 million.
	What's even worse about this, folks, I talked about it before.
	At the very beginning, they said, Look, look at this home that was destroyed by one of these drones falling down on it.
	And they knew at the time when they put that out, they had already known for 24 hours that that home was not hit by a drone.
	It was hit by one of the F-35 Sidewinder missiles, which not only missed its target, but when it hit the ground, it was a dud.
	And so it just did kinetic damage to it.
	There was no explosives involved.
	So they miss with a dud missile that cost a half a million dollars.
	This is the NATO clown show.
	These are the people who are kicking sand in Putin's face, hoping that we can get into World War III.
	Folks, you better start preparing for yourself.
	Seriously, get the manual, the civil defense manual.
	Start preparing in terms of your independence because these people are absolutely crazy and suicidal.
	And you can find the civil defense manual at jacklawsonbooks.com.
	Now, we've only got a little bit of time left, so I'm going to be cutting you off and remind people that if you like the show, you can support it multiple different ways.
	You go to davidknight.news to see all the ways you can support it.
	There's subscribestar.com forward slash the David Knight Show.
	We've got a lot of different tiers set up there.
	One of them may fit your budget.
	We ask that you go check that out.
	There's also the P.O. box, which is P.O. Box 994, Kodak Tennessee, 37764.
	And you address that to David Knight.
	You can also use Cash App or Zelle.
	There's a Bitcoin address as well.
	We appreciate all the support you guys have given us.
	You can also donate.
	We're getting close to the end of the month as well.
	Not close to the full point, though.
	You can donate on Rumble as well, and we really do appreciate everyone that does that.
	You can also subscribe over on Kick.
	And real quickly, I want to run through these comments that we've got.
	I'm going to do it quick.
	Doug to 007, Frank Nicely was a classic southern gentleman.
	I really appreciated what he was trying to do for the people.
	Frank Nicely was a very good man, very great man.
	Yeah, he was a great guy.
	And I've never seen such a zero of a candidate, somebody who was helped with money from outside a state who had absolutely no background.
	Well, you talk about somebody who is a chameleon carpetbagger.
	He is from Tennessee, but you know, the guy that ran against Frank Nicely.
	Yeah, the money, yeah, exactly.
	I'm not talking about Frank.
	I'm talking about the smear campaign conducted against Frank Nicely by the establishment powers that they're.
	And of course, Frank Nicely tried to stop outside money from being involved in funding these state campaigns.
	He didn't get his fellow Republicans to vote for that, and he was the casualty of that in the next election.
	Outside money, money outside the state, wanted to make sure they maintained that influence by punishing anybody who would push back against them.
	Yeah, he was a real hero to me.
	So we're sorry to see him gone.
	Well, thank you all for tuning in today.
	We really do appreciate it.
	We will be back tomorrow, and we'll see you then.
	Thank you.
	Have a good day.
	The Common Man.
	They created Common Core to dumb down our children.
	They created Common Past to track and control us.
	Their Commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing in the communist future.
	They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
	But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
	That is what we have in common.
	That is what they want to take away.
	Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
	They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
	It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
	Please share the information and links you'll find at thedavidnikeshow.com.
	Thank you for listening.
	Thank you for sharing.
	If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.

▲